Will new D&D bring back those who left?
Thomas N. Bagwell
on to other systems, and although we glanced at 2nd edition AD&D, we were never
tempted to switch back.
Over the years, sitting in on AD&D games and seeing the worst stereotypes
brought to life, and listening to arguments supporting mechanics I detested, and
watching mechanics evolve and change in directions I liked, I find myself
dismissing the new D&D out-of-hand.
It occurs that I might be doing it a disservice. I detest AD&D and the mindset
that seems to accompany it. I've lost my enthusiasm for WotC since they dropped
the Primal Order line and introduced MtG. Combined, actually checking out the
new rules never occurred to me.
So...from this perspective...how are the new rules? Trying to set aside all the
baggage, I'm looking for an objective opinion as to how someone like myself will
view the new system. Most reviews are written with newcomers to gaming in mind.
I couldn't care less...I'm not a newcomer. I want to know the technical details
on the mechanics and how they stack up.
Anyone?
Tom B.
S. John Ross
| So...from this perspective...how are the new rules? Trying to set aside
all the
| baggage, I'm looking for an objective opinion as to how someone like
myself will
| view the new system. Most reviews are written with newcomers to gaming in
mind.
| I couldn't care less...I'm not a newcomer. I want to know the technical
details
| on the mechanics and how they stack up.
I don't think "objective opinions" exist, and asking for an "objective
opinion" about "someone like yourself's" views seems doubly impossible :)
Only you can tell us those things :)
That said, I look forward to seeing responses to this thread from folks
who've seen the game. If it rocks, I'll snag it and play it. If it doesn't,
no loss. So it's a win/break-even situation for me. I'm definitely _curious_
about NewD&D, although it would be an exxaggeration to say I have any hopes
built up around it.
It's been my experience that business-oriented game publishers are capable
of printing great games and incapable of supporting them with consistent
quality. So, while I have no hopes for the future of NewD&D as a game line,
I think it may develop into a valuable franchise that benefits the hobby,
and the core books themselves may well be great.
|| S. John Ross
|| Husband · Cook · Writer
|| In That Order
|| http://www.io.com/~sjohn/cumberland.htm - FONTS FOR GAMERS
Ace
> I played AD&D for a few years back in the early '80s. Our group
> rapidly moved
> on to other systems, and although we glanced at 2nd edition AD&D,
> we were never
> tempted to switch back.
> Over the years, sitting in on AD&D games and seeing the worst
> stereotypes
> brought to life, and listening to arguments supporting mechanics I
> detested, and
> watching mechanics evolve and change in directions I liked, I find
> myself
> dismissing the new D&D out-of-hand.
> It occurs that I might be doing it a disservice. I detest AD&D
> and the mindset
> that seems to accompany it. I've lost my enthusiasm for WotC
> since they dropped
> the Primal Order line and introduced MtG. Combined, actually
> checking out the
> new rules never occurred to me.
> aside all the
> baggage, I'm looking for an objective opinion as to how someone
> like myself will
> view the new system. Most reviews are written with newcomers to
> gaming in mind.
> I couldn't care less...I'm not a newcomer. I want to know the
> technical details
> on the mechanics and how they stack up.
Well I am not sure that anything to do with RPG can be objective but
here goes....
Technically from what I have seen on Eric Noah's Sight and Usenet the
new rules are good but they seem oriented to the first edition
"commando" style of play.
The new Feats are mostly combat or tactical options, all of the new
classes are battle oriented and so on.
It looks hi powered to me. I suspect if Comabat Mania is why you left
D&D then 3e won't bring you back
It does however look better thought out then any other edition.
My capsule review it looks worth the $20 but I doubt I will play it.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Troy Robert Wilson
"Thomas N. Bagwell" <tnba...@1nol.com> wrote in message
news:3991...@news2.starnetinc.com...
> So...from this perspective...how are the new rules? Trying to set aside
all the
> baggage, I'm looking for an objective opinion as to how someone like
myself will
> view the new system. Most reviews are written with newcomers to gaming in
mind.
> I couldn't care less...I'm not a newcomer. I want to know the technical
details
> on the mechanics and how they stack up.
>
> Anyone?
Have you seen Eric Noah's site? Everything you can know about DND3, without
actually buying it.
http://www.rpgplanet.com/dnd3e/index.html
For what it's worth, it looks fairly good. I haven't played D&D for years
because of the mechanics and the straitjacketing of character development.
While it won't make me switch from GURPS and the other games I prefer,
exclusively, the rules of the new D&D look like they've been streamlined
enough to be playable without fifteen charts and a calculator.
As several have described it, it looks fairly decent for a high fantasy,
cinematic type of game, where the warriors hack through hordes of
the-cannon-fodder-of-the-week, and the wizards fling lightning, and the
thieves sneak and scout around. As to anyone concerned about actually
roleplaying, I've always considered that apart from the mechanics -- just
about any game can have 'real' roleplaying elements introduced into it. I,
at least plan to buy it, and play it, for the same reason I keep going to
those Jet Li and Jackie Chan movies. It looks like fun.
Just my opinion, of course,
TRW
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Håvard Rønne Faanes
>So...from this perspective...how are the new rules? Trying to set aside all the
>baggage, I'm looking for an objective opinion as to how someone like myself will
>view the new system. Most reviews are written with newcomers to gaming in mind.
>I couldn't care less...I'm not a newcomer. I want to know the technical details
>on the mechanics and how they stack up.
From what I've gathered of information that has leaked about the game so
far, it seems to me that this is going to be as good as D&D ever will
get. Changing the rules even further will make the system something that
is not D&D.
However, what I see as essential elements of D&D still remain: Alignments,
classes, levels, experience points for killing monsters.
The mechanics in general appear to have been made very streamlined and
elegant as any modern system should be. But the key elements that I
mentioned above remain. And I believe that these will still enforce
character stereotypes and encourage hack and slash type dungeon crawling.
The magic system, which is the final weakness of the system in my opinion
remains, although it has been cleaned up considerably, the same.
Håvard
--
Haavard R. Faanes (h...@nvg.ntnu.no)
http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/~hoc
"Would it not be easier in this case for the government
to dissolve the people and elect another?" -Bertolt Brecht
Rygar
<tnba...@1nol.com> wrote:
>So...from this perspective...how are the new rules?
Get back to us in a week or so, the official release date is the 10th
:)
You'll probably also get more info on rec.games.frp.dnd
Peter Meilinger
: As several have described it, it looks fairly decent for a high fantasy,
: cinematic type of game, where the warriors hack through hordes of
: the-cannon-fodder-of-the-week, and the wizards fling lightning, and the
: thieves sneak and scout around. As to anyone concerned about actually
: roleplaying, I've always considered that apart from the mechanics -- just
: about any game can have 'real' roleplaying elements introduced into it. I,
: at least plan to buy it, and play it, for the same reason I keep going to
: those Jet Li and Jackie Chan movies. It looks like fun.
: Just my opinion, of course,
That's pretty much the way I feel too. And I've always enjoyed the
(A)D&D games I've played in. Maybe I'm the exception, I dunno.
But I figure if they want me to buy a new set of rules every 10
years, what the hell. I'm in.
Pete
Peter Knutsen
"Thomas N. Bagwell" wrote:
> So...from this perspective...how are the new rules? Trying to set aside all the
> baggage, I'm looking for an objective opinion as to how someone like myself will
> view the new system. Most reviews are written with newcomers to gaming in mind.
> I couldn't care less...I'm not a newcomer. I want to know the technical details
> on the mechanics and how they stack up.
They look okay. They're light years behind the rules systems I
consider to be of good quality, but they are also light years
ahead of older versions of *D&D.
> Anyone?
If WotC continues their new trend improving the rules, they'll have
caught up with the non-*D&D gaming community in a couple of
centuries.
Me, I'd probably purchase the PHB and DMG at some point, just to
get a really good look at things (lots of stuff have already
been releaved on Eric Noah's 3E site) and to be prepared in case
I get the opportunity to play some short-term D&D, either one-
shots or short campaigns. I'd never join a long-term campaign
based on D&D.
> Tom B.
--
Peter Knutsen
Douglas Milewski
underlying concepts and the standard player mentality will not be.
In the end, it is still a level based system. It is very quantum, not granular. A
basic character is still barely competant. Fighting will remain the cornerstone of
the system. Classes remain.
If may be more fun to play, though. Hearing, "A thief can't do that, it's not
realistic," then watching a wizard throw a fireball, I was always inclide to go,
"Umm, realism? Excuse me?" They finally decided that perfect realism was not their
goal.
The game may draw a few folks back. I'll give it a try. Likely, it will wind up
sitting on the shelf.
Douglas
"Thomas N. Bagwell" wrote:
> I played AD&D for a few years back in the early '80s. Our group rapidly moved
> on to other systems, and although we glanced at 2nd edition AD&D, we were never
> tempted to switch back.
>
> Over the years, sitting in on AD&D games and seeing the worst stereotypes
> brought to life, and listening to arguments supporting mechanics I detested, and
> watching mechanics evolve and change in directions I liked, I find myself
> dismissing the new D&D out-of-hand.
>
> It occurs that I might be doing it a disservice. I detest AD&D and the mindset
> that seems to accompany it. I've lost my enthusiasm for WotC since they dropped
> the Primal Order line and introduced MtG. Combined, actually checking out the
> new rules never occurred to me.
>
> So...from this perspective...how are the new rules? Trying to set aside all the
> baggage, I'm looking for an objective opinion as to how someone like myself will
> view the new system. Most reviews are written with newcomers to gaming in mind.
> I couldn't care less...I'm not a newcomer. I want to know the technical details
> on the mechanics and how they stack up.
>
> Anyone?
>
> Tom B.
Peter Knutsen
Troy Robert Wilson wrote:
>
> "Thomas N. Bagwell" <tnba...@1nol.com> wrote in message
> > Anyone?
>
> Have you seen Eric Noah's site? Everything you can know about DND3, without
> actually buying it.
>
> http://www.rpgplanet.com/dnd3e/index.html
And you should hurry there, because he'll start taking most of
the rules information down within the next few days. Maybe
less than a week.
Just thought I'd point this out.
> TRW
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Håvard Rønne Faanes wrote:
>
> Thomas N. Bagwell wrote:
>
> >So...from this perspective...how are the new rules? Trying to set aside all the
> >baggage, I'm looking for an objective opinion as to how someone like myself will
> >view the new system. Most reviews are written with newcomers to gaming in mind.
> >I couldn't care less...I'm not a newcomer. I want to know the technical details
> >on the mechanics and how they stack up.
>
> From what I've gathered of information that has leaked about the game so
> far, it seems to me that this is going to be as good as D&D ever will
> get. Changing the rules even further will make the system something that
> is not D&D.
Maybe you're right about any further changes making the game
no longer *D&D.
> However, what I see as essential elements of D&D still remain: Alignments,
> classes, levels, experience points for killing monsters.
I see one stupidity removed: restrictive classes. Only several
dozens more to go, before the rules are good.
> The mechanics in general appear to have been made very streamlined and
> elegant as any modern system should be. But the key elements that I
> mentioned above remain. And I believe that these will still enforce
> character stereotypes and encourage hack and slash type dungeon crawling.
The classes are no longer restrictive. That's a major step
forward. It's like the difference between an amobae and a
dinosaur. Of course the systems you and I are playing under
are the equivalents of primates, but don't say D&D 3rd
Edition hasn't evolved relative to AD&D 2nd Edition.
> The magic system, which is the final weakness of the system in my opinion
> remains, although it has been cleaned up considerably, the same.
Starting spellcasters have slightly more spell, but it's still
not satisfactory. I'd have preferred that the 1st level spells
were weakened (so that a Sleep spell only affects on target
instead of half a dozen) and then the 1st level Wizard gets
more slots for memorizing 1st level spells.
In AD&D, a 1st level mage is like an battle tank with a single
shell, a tactical nuke. In D&D he gets a couple of shells, but
they're still tacnukes. I much prefer the way just about any
other fantasy RPG rules system does it, in which a beginning
spellcaster has the capacity to cast more spells but the
spells are weaker (conventional shells instead of tacnukes).
> Håvard
--
Peter Knutsen
George W. Harris
wrote:
:The classes are no longer restrictive. That's a major step
:forward. It's like the difference between an amobae and a
:dinosaur. Of course the systems you and I are playing under
:are the equivalents of primates, but don't say D&D 3rd
:Edition hasn't evolved relative to AD&D 2nd Edition.
So the versions of D&D are like extremely
successful, diverse, and long-lived phyletic
categories, while the system you play is relatively
new and sparse?
--
"The truths of mathematics describe a bright and clear universe,
exquisite and beautiful in its structure, in comparison with
which the physical world is turbid and confused."
-Eulogy for G.H.Hardy
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Rick Jones
excited about D&D3rd. From what I've read, it's going to fix
a lot of my problems with the system.
My other big problem with D&D is that lots of players have the
game memorized. The DM starts to describe the monster, and the
alpha-geeks start quoting how many hit dice it has. But that's
not a problem with the system, per se. The DM could fix it
by changing things around.
[1] That didn't stop me from playing it twice a month - I simply
made a character that AD&D2 didn't "break" - a tank-guy fighter
uber-specialized in a single weapon.
--
Rick Jones He's a complicated man...
ri...@blkbox.com but no one understands him but his Wookie.
http://www.blkbox.com/~rick --Han "Shaft" Solo, by Ginger Stampley
Jim Davies
>In AD&D, a 1st level mage is like an battle tank with a single
>shell, a tactical nuke.
It's more like a small child with an RPG-7. Calling him a battle tank
implies that he can survive being hit by a kobold's grandmother, which
he probably can't.
Jim Davies
------------------------------------------
Spamfilter: remove all clothing to reply.
This does not affect your statutory rights.
Sea Wasp
> So...from this perspective...how are the new rules?
Speaking as a playtester and a VERY long-term gamer (since '77):
They're magnificent. An amazing bit of work, really, keeping the
basic flavor of D&D and, at the same time, doing a TRULY major
overhaul on the old beast, changing or fixing many things that used to
drive me insane. Even the Fire And Forget system is somehow more
palatable now.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Trevor Barrie
=?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E5vard_R=F8nne?= Faanes <h...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
>From what I've gathered of information that has leaked about the game so
>far, it seems to me that this is going to be as good as D&D ever will
>get. Changing the rules even further will make the system something that
>is not D&D.
>
>classes, levels, experience points for killing monsters.
I don't see XP for killing monsters as being remotely essential to D&D,
personally, and am thus moderately disappointed that it remains.
George W. Harris
wrote:
:
:
:"George W. Harris" wrote:
:>
:> On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 23:38:33 +0200, Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>
:> wrote:
:>
:> :The classes are no longer restrictive. That's a major step
:> :forward. It's like the difference between an amobae and a
:> :dinosaur. Of course the systems you and I are playing under
:> :are the equivalents of primates, but don't say D&D 3rd
:> :Edition hasn't evolved relative to AD&D 2nd Edition.
:>
:> So the versions of D&D are like extremely
:> successful, diverse, and long-lived phyletic
:> categories, while the system you play is relatively
:> new and sparse?
:
:A higher primate can survive in many more enviroments and
:terrain types than a dinosaur. They're also a lot smarter
:(dinosaurs never used tools), they adapt in real-time
:(memetic adaption) instead of requiring several generations
:(genetic adaption). And one primate species is currently the
:most dangerous animal ever to have lived on the planet Earth.
:
:The scaly guys can't beat that :-)
Dinosaurs survived for hundreds of
millions of years.
I notice you didn't even *try* to
compare primates to amoebae; good move.
--
e^(i*pi)+1=0
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Peter Knutsen
Rick Jones wrote:
>
> I've been a frothing anti-D&D guy for years now, and I'm very
> excited about D&D3rd. From what I've read, it's going to fix
> a lot of my problems with the system.
Most of the problems I have with AD&D are still present in 3E D&D.
> My other big problem with D&D is that lots of players have the
> game memorized. The DM starts to describe the monster, and the
> alpha-geeks start quoting how many hit dice it has. But that's
> not a problem with the system, per se. The DM could fix it
> by changing things around.
Te problem you mention is actually solved. The so-called
monsters now all have ability scores, and they can all have
classes. (clarification: they will always have ability scores.
They can have classes)
So if you meet a zombie, it might have an INT of 8 (impressive
for a mindless undead) and be a 9th level Fighter *and* a
4th level Rogue. And maybe it has the "Alertness" Feat, or
the "Blind-Fighting" Feat.
Makes it a bit harder for the memorizers, doesn't it?
> --
> Rick Jones He's a complicated man...
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
"George W. Harris" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 23:38:33 +0200, Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>
> wrote:
>
> :The classes are no longer restrictive. That's a major step
> :forward. It's like the difference between an amobae and a
> :dinosaur. Of course the systems you and I are playing under
> :are the equivalents of primates, but don't say D&D 3rd
> :Edition hasn't evolved relative to AD&D 2nd Edition.
>
> So the versions of D&D are like extremely
> successful, diverse, and long-lived phyletic
> categories, while the system you play is relatively
> new and sparse?
A higher primate can survive in many more enviroments and
terrain types than a dinosaur. They're also a lot smarter
(dinosaurs never used tools), they adapt in real-time
(memetic adaption) instead of requiring several generations
(genetic adaption). And one primate species is currently the
most dangerous animal ever to have lived on the planet Earth.
The scaly guys can't beat that :-)
> George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
--
Peter Knutsen
Jason Mulligan
>
>
> Rick Jones wrote:
> >
> > I've been a frothing anti-D&D guy for years now, and I'm very
> > excited about D&D3rd. From what I've read, it's going to fix
> > a lot of my problems with the system.
>
> Most of the problems I have with AD&D are still present in 3E D&D.
From what I can tell, the only thing they havent fixed for my liking is
the vancian magic system. But ading a spell-point system should be too
much of a chore.
That was (and is) one of my main beefs...
Peter Knutsen
Jim Davies wrote:
>
> Also spracht Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>:
>
> >In AD&D, a 1st level mage is like an battle tank with a single
> >shell, a tactical nuke.
>
> It's more like a small child with an RPG-7. Calling him a battle tank
> implies that he can survive being hit by a kobold's grandmother, which
> he probably can't.
True. Comparing him to a mobile cannon would be better. What's
it called, "a self-powered artillery piece" or something?
> Jim Davies
--
Peter Knutsen
Bokman7757
But you can't deny the fact that dinosaurs are just plain COOL.
Bokman7757
personally, and am thus moderately disappointed that it remains. >>
It's sort of altered. You still get XP for "defeating" monsters, but there's
also suggestions for story-based XP awards and the like.
Sidhain
And in the 2ed DMG it reads that "Defeating"
means "dealing with the problem" not necessarily killing the critter, if it's cutting a deal
with the Dragon for half the profits it gets from pillaging pirate ships in order to keep the
local law of it's back that too can count as an EXP award for defeat...
Klaus Ę. Mogensen
skrev s wrote:
>
> From what I can tell, the only thing they havent fixed for my
liking is the
too
> much of a chore.
>
> That was (and is) one of my main beefs...
Some of my main beefs, which still remain, are:
- Excalating hit points.
- Armor that makes you harder to hit rather than protecting you
from damage (which makes a padded suit of plate armor absolutely
useless vs. a Fireball or other area effects).
- A damage system where you function at full capacity while one
point short of dying.
--
Klaus Æ. Mogensen
http://hjem.get2net.dk/Klaudius
"Now I know."
"What do you know?"
"I know that Miranda is a Botticelli angel."
S. John Ross
| point short of dying.
It hasn't worked that way in YEARS though, has it? Even in AD&D 1st Edition,
you went unconscious at zero HP and didn't die 'til like -10, IIRC.
|| S. John Ross
|| Husband · Cook · Writer
|| In That Order
|| http://www.cumberlandgames.com - Stuff For Gamers
Tenzhi the Ti Hsien
Klaus Ę. Mogensen <klau...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:vKwk5.119$Ac3....@news.get2net.dk...
> - Armor that makes you harder to hit rather than protecting you
> from damage (which makes a padded suit of plate armor absolutely
> useless vs. a Fireball or other area effects).
Being harder to hit is in effect its own protection from damage. Also,
wearing full plate will not protect you from fire, and is more likely to act
as a sort of crisper. The fighter in full plate is an oven just waiting to
cook. And when that padding catches on fire look out!.
Tim Serpas
>| - A damage system where you function at full capacity while one
>| point short of dying.
>
>It hasn't worked that way in YEARS though, has it? Even in AD&D 1st Edition,
>you went unconscious at zero HP and didn't die 'til like -10, IIRC.
I'd call that AD&D v1.1 (PH, DMG plus Unearthed Arcanna; v1.2
when you get Oriental Adventures and nonweapon proficiencies,
IIRC...). Zero HP might not mean character loss, but it does
put you out of the fight 100%, but with any positive number
of HP, you are in the fight 100%.
Wretch
Marc el Kato
Bokman7757 <bokma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000809232750...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
> << I don't see XP for killing monsters as being remotely essential to D&D,
> personally, and am thus moderately disappointed that it remains. >>
>
> It's sort of altered. You still get XP for "defeating" monsters, but
there's
> also suggestions for story-based XP awards and the like.
I don't understand this hatred of experience points for the defeating of
monsters. While the amount you get should be limited, isn't it true that you
are gaining experience by defeating monsters, meaning you are becoming
better at fighting? Therefore, IMO, experience points are therefore normal.
--
Marc el Kato
Marc el Kato
S. John Ross <sj...@io.com> wrote in message
news:8mua6g$75st7$1...@ID-40196.news.cis.dfn.de...
> It hasn't worked that way in YEARS though, has it? Even in AD&D 1st
Edition,
> you went unconscious at zero HP and didn't die 'til like -10, IIRC.
Not so. Read the 2nd ed, you DIE at 0.
--
Marc el Kato
4th_Doctor
spells. Keeps the "alpha-geeks" on their toes. My basic
problems with AD&D was more with the character mechanics and the
handling of levels, alignment, etc. I have found other systems
that handle character make-up/personality much better. The
other game mechanics have strengths and weaknesses of course,
and I can't say there haven't been AD&D games that I have
enjoyed. Will I buy 3rd edition? The Jury is still out.
The Doc
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
4th_Doctor
after a community service project (I was a Boy Scout), one of
the older boys (the Scout Masters eldest son) invited me to a
game. I was handed a wizard and told to try not to get myself
killed. It was a riot.
The Doc
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> . . . a VERY long-term gamer (since '77):
Doug Dawson
: S. John Ross <sj...@io.com> wrote:
: >| - A damage system where you function at full capacity while one
: >| point short of dying.
: >
: >It hasn't worked that way in YEARS though, has it? Even in AD&D 1st Edition,
: >you went unconscious at zero HP and didn't die 'til like -10, IIRC.
: I'd call that AD&D v1.1 (PH, DMG plus Unearthed Arcanna; v1.2
: when you get Oriental Adventures and nonweapon proficiencies,
: IIRC...). Zero HP might not mean character loss, but it does
: put you out of the fight 100%, but with any positive number
: of HP, you are in the fight 100%.
Frankly, I like this ("It's a feature, not a bug!"). For larger-than-life
play, I dislike the death spiral that often results from a more realistic
approach, where wounding makes you less able to fight and so more likely
to get wounded again.
We ignored the reduced-ability when heavily wounded rule in our local
Torg game, though we've admittedly kept the Crippled rule in 7th Sea
and the Impairment rules in Feng Shui (the v1.1 Crippled rule isn't
_too_ bad, and neither are the Impairment rules, so we can live with
them).
On the other hand, I feel like I have to say that I dislike ever-increasing
hit points; the concept is too vague and leads to all the usual problems
that people have been pointing out for years.
I
Patrick Berry
> In article <slrn8p39n...@tyrell.nvg.ntnu.no>,
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E5vard_R=F8nne?= Faanes <h...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> >However, what I see as essential elements of D&D still remain: Alignments,
> >classes, levels, experience points for killing monsters.
>
> I don't see XP for killing monsters as being remotely essential to D&D,
> personally, and am thus moderately disappointed that it remains.
I don't care for it myself, but I've never seen it as a problem. As in
previous editions, it's easy to ignore if you don't want to use it.
S. John Ross
| Edition,
| > you went unconscious at zero HP and didn't die 'til like -10, IIRC.
|
Hrm. Well, they backslid, then :) In 1st Edition, they didn't die 'til they
hit -10 Hit Points (p.82, Dungeon Masters Guide 1st Ed). I never really got
familiar with 2nd Edition; I retired AD&D from my active repetoire just
after it came out.
S. John Ross
Edition,
| : >you went unconscious at zero HP and didn't die 'til like -10, IIRC.
|
| : when you get Oriental Adventures and nonweapon proficiencies,
| : IIRC...). Zero HP might not mean character loss, but it does
| : put you out of the fight 100%, but with any positive number
| : of HP, you are in the fight 100%.
The rule was in the DMG, p.82
| Frankly, I like this ("It's a feature, not a bug!"). For larger-than-life
| play, I dislike the death spiral that often results from a more realistic
| approach, where wounding makes you less able to fight and so more likely
| to get wounded again.
I agree, especially for heroic fantasy. But the DMG method was a nice
compromise. You operated at 100% until you reached the threshold of
unconsciousness (0 hp) but you could still be saved by the timely
application of healing magic. So there was no "spiral" - just a kind of
safety net, which is optimal for the high-fantasy end of the spectrum, I'd
say.
--
Håvard Rønne Faanes
> I don't understand this hatred of experience points for the defeating of
>monsters. While the amount you get should be limited, isn't it true that you
>are gaining experience by defeating monsters, meaning you are becoming
>better at fighting? Therefore, IMO, experience points are therefore normal.
The problem is whats its effect on the game. Although you can say that it
makes sense, it encourages combat oriented gaming over other types of
roleplaying.
There are other ways to reflect in a system that combat increases your
combat abilities. The Basic Roleplaying System used in Cthulhu, RuneQuest
and Pendragon for instance has rules that mean that using a skill
frequently will raise this skill. Other systems have similar methods to
relfect experience.
Håvard
--
Haavard R. Faanes (h...@nvg.ntnu.no)
http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/~hoc
"Would it not be easier in this case for the government
to dissolve the people and elect another?" -Bertolt Brecht
S. John Ross
| The problem is whats its effect on the game. Although you can say that it
| makes sense, it encourages combat oriented gaming over other types of
| roleplaying.
D&D is a combat-oriented game. If it failed to encourage its own style of
play, it would be doing something seriously wrong. I don't think the AD&D
experience system "makes sense" at all from a realism point of view, but I
think it makes perfect sense in the context of the game's very clear goals
(where realism takes an appropriately minuscule level of priority, and a bit
"hear hear!" to that). I respected TSR for being unapolagetic about it over
the years, and I respect WotC for continuing that tradition. It's the
primary influence that the D&D family of games have on my own work: I never,
ever apologize for designing game material that appeals to me and answers to
my own needs as a hobbyist.
D&D is not the kind of gaming I do much anymore, but it would be absurd for
me to say that AD&D is "wrong" to do it, or that it makes AD&D a poorer
game. It just makes it a game I'm less likely to play (pretty entirely
unlikely to play, in fact), which (considering the literally _hundreds_ of
good RPGs I have no interest in playing) puts it in respectable company.
AD&D does have a few rough spots on doing the things it's _for,_ too, but
overall, AD&D is better at its own genre than the dozens or more ripoffs of
it over the years have been, and that's in large part because the ripoffs
had huge chips on their collective shoulder about "repairing" some of the
things that AD&D was doing right all along. They weakened themselves with an
obvious obsession with the game they were imitating, rather than a secure
focus on their own strengths. I always carefully read the introduction and
designer's notes (if any) for an RPG, and if there's too much whining about
what others have done _wrong,_ I place the book gently back on the shelf to
gather its quota of dust, because it's an excellent sign of a very amateur
game (amateur in the crappy way, not amateur in the cool Slacker Aesthetic
way). The place for whining is here on Usenet, not in our Introductions :)
AD&D may be crappy for doing Ars Magica style gaming or Pendragon style
gaming or even RuneQuest style gaming (really, it depends on what kind of RQ
we're talking about ... ), but there are reasons why its never been toppled
from its particular hill, and it's only partly attributable to its position
in the earliest family of RPG games, and TSR's (and then WotCs) attention to
marketing and continual improvement of production values.
I don't really like AD&D anymore, but not because it's a bad game. Because
it's good at doing something I don't want to do anymore. It's important, I
think, to keep that distinction in mind.
SD Anderson
> I don't understand this hatred of experience points for the
> defeating of monsters. While the amount you get should be
> limited, isn't it true that you are gaining experience by
> defeating monsters, meaning you are becoming better at fighting?
> Therefore, IMO, experience points are therefore normal.
Generally the complaint reads "You have to defeat monsters TO
get xps" not "You're getting xps for defeating mosnters". I
understand the new rules address this to some extent but up until
now a DM has had no real guidance for awarding xp for combatless
achievements.
Douglas Milewski
things, all at once, or you get none of them. It gives the player some decisions,
but not many. Characters evolve by fits and starts and not fluidly. The players
are always looking to make that next level.
This is much different than more point style systems. A player can choose to save
up to buy something big, or tweak up small things as he goes. There is never the
push towards the "next level." The process is much more evolutionary, rather than
revolutionary.
Douglas
Håvard Rønne Faanes wrote:
> Marc el Kato wrote:
>
> > I don't understand this hatred of experience points for the defeating of
> >monsters. While the amount you get should be limited, isn't it true that you
> >are gaining experience by defeating monsters, meaning you are becoming
> >better at fighting? Therefore, IMO, experience points are therefore normal.
>
> The problem is whats its effect on the game. Although you can say that it
> makes sense, it encourages combat oriented gaming over other types of
> roleplaying.
>
Blackberry
2000 15:20:34 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>> personally, and am thus moderately disappointed that it remains. >>
>>
>there's
>> also suggestions for story-based XP awards and the like.
>
>monsters. While the amount you get should be limited, isn't it true that you
>are gaining experience by defeating monsters, meaning you are becoming
>better at fighting? Therefore, IMO, experience points are therefore normal.
That's true, but what if you're a low-level wizard? AD&D (at least 1st ed) is
structured such that the character delivering the killing blow gets 100% of the
experience for the monster. How often is a Knock spell going to off a monster?
If you don't make a house rule to split the XP equally, then the wizard isn't
going to get better at anything.
--------------------
"It's enough to make you wonder sometimes if you're on the right planet."
-- Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Brian -- le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com -- remove "NOSPAM"
Thomas N. Bagwell
news:0vg3ps43bcpf69sgq...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:29:35 -0500, "Thomas N. Bagwell"
> <tnba...@1nol.com> wrote:
>
> >So...from this perspective...how are the new rules?
>
> Get back to us in a week or so, the official release date is the 10th
> :)
>
> You'll probably also get more info on rec.games.frp.dnd
I was hoping for something less...biased...
Michael Ball
>I played AD&D for a few years back in the early '80s. Our group rapidly moved
>on to other systems, and although we glanced at 2nd edition AD&D, we were never
>tempted to switch back.
I started too in 1980. Went from D&D-AD&D-Rolemaster-TGTA in 4-5 years. I have
not been too into the fine details of 3E, but I must say I am curious. I will
probably pick up the game, if not for anything, but to see if they did it
*right*. What I mean is that, although there were many things that bugged me
about AD&D 1st edition, 2nd edition totally made it worse (removing a lot
of cool stuff and then making 100 books) and completely turned me off the
product. I recall a lot of people were really dissappointed in the 2nd
edition. I think 3rd edition will get back to the roots. That is, marketed and
produced like the original series: 3 core books and then some 1st level
modules and so on. This may bring back us old-guys, if not for anything, but
pure nostalgia. I don't need 50 supplements, just solid rules and some nifty
scenarios.
Will 3E still bug me, probably. For example, I hate the way AD&D handles
spells (memorizing). But, if they fix a bunch of other stuff, a house rule
will work around the spell issue.
When I pick up a copy of the player's handbook, I will post my comments.
How objective can I be depends on how misty I feel for AD&D and the context in
which the game is taken. It is after-all AD&D, not the
mother-of-all-mechanics/be-everything-to-everyone game.
Do I despise AD&D? Yes. Do I love it? Yes! Bring it on, baby.
Mike
------------------------------------
Remove X's before replying by e-mail
The Guide to Adventure:
http://www.meramic.com/tgta
The Face of Battle:
http://www.meramic.com/tfob
Staffan Johansson
wrote:
>Hrm. Well, they backslid, then :) In 1st Edition, they didn't die 'til they
>hit -10 Hit Points (p.82, Dungeon Masters Guide 1st Ed). I never really got
>familiar with 2nd Edition; I retired AD&D from my active repetoire just
>after it came out.
"Vanilla" 2nd edition said that you died at 0 hp. However, there was a
widely used optional rule in the DMG about "hovering at death's door",
which said that you didn't die until -10, and had you losing 1
hp/round while in the negatives. I'm too lazy to check it out, but I
think that if you're at exactly 0 hp, you're just unconscious but not
"bleeding".
I gather that this rule, or something close to it, is official in 3e.
--
Staffan Johansson (bal...@crosswinds.net)
Staffan Johansson
wrote:
>That's true, but what if you're a low-level wizard? AD&D (at least 1st ed) is
>structured such that the character delivering the killing blow gets 100% of the
>experience for the monster. How often is a Knock spell going to off a monster?
>If you don't make a house rule to split the XP equally, then the wizard isn't
>going to get better at anything.
Say what? No edition of D&D I've played or read has used such a
patently silly rule - though I haven't played 1st ed AD&D, I have read
the Basic-Master rules, and at least there XP is split evenly.
I know that in AD&D1, the XP value of a monster depended partially on
its actual hp (kobolds gave 5 XP + 1 XP/hp), and it's possible that
the hp-based XP goes to the one who inflicts the damage, but that's
the only thing I've heard about silly things like that.
Come to think about it, the only games I can think of with kill-based
XP are Rolemaster (though Crit-based XP are deducted from the kill XP)
and Warhammer Quest (which is a boardgame with RPG elements).
--
Staffan Johansson (bal...@crosswinds.net)
Michael T. Richter
news:6Lzk5.4125$K5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I don't understand this hatred of experience points for the
> defeating of monsters.
I have never defeated a monster in my entire life. I have, nonetheless,
quite a bit of experience and have advanced quite a lot in my profession.
The issue isn't that you get experience for defeating monsters. It is that
you *ONLY* get experience for defeating monsters and looting treasure from
their homes. This makes no sense at all. Why should a magic user, for
example, get experience for slaughtering things, but not from learning new
spells? Indeed why is the only way to get experience from, say, a scroll
not casting the spell from it instead of selling it in town?
Then there's the granularity issue. If my thief character does nothing but
pick pockets, at level change the thieving abilities go up all at once.
That means picking pockets over and over and over again somehow increases my
ability to climb walls. Hell, if my thief character goes around and just
kills monsters without once using thieving abilities they *STILL* all go up.
This is just loopy.
Michael T. Richter
> As in previous editions, it's easy to ignore if you don't want to use it.
"AD&D is a great role-playing game because anything you don't want to use
you can just ignore or change."
That's not a great marketing slogan. First, it applies to *ANY* game.
Monopoly, under this principle, is a great role-playing game. Second,
precisely what does D&D bring to the table then? If something as
fundamental as character development is unsatisfactory and requires
replacement, what did I just shell out my $$$ for?
Michael T. Richter
news:3991E8...@wizvax.net...
>> So...from this perspective...how are the new rules?
> Speaking as a playtester and a VERY long-term gamer
> (since '77):
> They're magnificent. An amazing bit of work, really,
> keeping the basic flavor of D&D and, at the same time,
> doing a TRULY major overhaul on the old beast, changing
> or fixing many things that used to drive me insane.
Does it still have:
- quantum ability increases?
- armour making you more difficult to hit?
- hit points which don't cause any difficulties until the 0 transition?
- ever-increasing hit points?
- experience still coming from combat and looting for the most part?
- mages forgetting their spells after casting them?
If it has any two of these, it is still of absolutely no interest to me
whatsoever.
> Even the Fire And Forget system is somehow more palatable
> now.
Oops. Scratch that last one. Apparently it still has the magical
equivalent of a fighter forgetting how to use his sword after hitting an
opponent. That means if it has any one of the items above I will never buy,
run or play the game.
Sidhain
> | Not so. Read the 2nd ed, you DIE at 0.
>
> hit -10 Hit Points (p.82, Dungeon Masters Guide 1st Ed). I never really got
> familiar with 2nd Edition; I retired AD&D from my active repetoire just
> after it came out.
>
It's still there...it's just an "optional rule" however 90% of TSR campaign worlds--Dark Sun,
Jakandor, and others required this rule be used...and I've never known a GM not to use it or
some very near derivation thereof.
Ichabod
Richter" <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
> Then there's the granularity issue. If my thief character does nothing but
> pick pockets, at level change the thieving abilities go up all at once.
> That means picking pockets over and over and over again somehow increases my
> ability to climb walls. Hell, if my thief character goes around and just
> kills monsters without once using thieving abilities they *STILL* all go up.
> This is just loopy.
To be fair, there are very fe systems which really deal with this
problem. In most games, even without level systems, experience
you get from doing one thing can easily be used to learn something
else.
---
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien
Burger-flipper of the electronic age
Vote for Ralph Nader
Michael T. Richter
news:ichabod-1008...@10.1.1.31...
>> Then there's the granularity issue. If my thief character does nothing
but
>> pick pockets, at level change the thieving abilities go up all at once.
>> That means picking pockets over and over and over again somehow increases
my
>> ability to climb walls. Hell, if my thief character goes around and just
>> kills monsters without once using thieving abilities they *STILL* all go
up.
>> This is just loopy.
> To be fair, there are very fe systems which really deal with this
> problem. In most games, even without level systems, experience
> you get from doing one thing can easily be used to learn something
> else.
The Chaosium games didn't have this problem. You could raise skills you
used and skills you trained in. That was about it.
Classic Traveller didn't have this problem either. You basically, for all
practical purposes, couldn't raise skills at all. :-)
Games which have experience points which can be spent at will have part of
this problem. I can kill monsters with my sword and then choose to use my
experience to up my reading skill. I do not, however, have all of my
abilities go up all at once. The disjoint relationship problem is there,
but the granularity problem isn't.
Michael Ball
>> To be fair, there are very fe systems which really deal with this
>> problem. In most games, even without level systems, experience
>> you get from doing one thing can easily be used to learn something
>> else.
>
>The Chaosium games didn't have this problem. You could raise skills you
>used and skills you trained in. That was about it.
>>
The problem with that is, players will have their characters use skills just
to *raise* them. Just as bad as killing and looting fo xp's. Basically what I
did was give out X amount of experience at the end of an adventure based on
the play as a whole, with some modifications for individual excellent or poor
play. You could only apply the xp's to skills already learned, or if playing
AD&D to the class.
As soon as there is any type of levels (skill levels or class levels), players
will, whether they knowingly try to or not, work towards that next level.
One of the main problems I found with AD&D xp's was that the values were too
high.
Aaron Day
>
> The problem is whats its effect on the game. Although you can say that it
> makes sense, it encourages combat oriented gaming over other types of
> roleplaying.
Yes, but also encourages the players to actually seek out the adventure. Its incredibly
frustrating as a GM to have all the players sit around and talk for four hours without
advancing the plot I prepared, and then expect to receive the full amount of XP (or
whatever) because they were "role-playing". Yuck.
Aaron
Michael T. Richter
news:B4BDA47D999FA376.B2E51969...@lp.airnews.net...
Problem 1: You shouldn't prepare a plot for your players to follow. You
should offer plots (note the plural) they can involve themselves in and a
setting which can support other ones in case they aren't interested in what
you provided.
Problem 2: Are you sure you want to be playing role-playing games given
your distaste for actual role-playing? Perhaps you might want to look at
skirmish-level wargames. (Such wargames, after all, are what D&D evolved
from. They're also what most D&D campaigns resemble anyway.)
Doug Berry
Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>, wrote thusly:
>A higher primate can survive in many more enviroments and
>terrain types than a dinosaur. They're also a lot smarter
>(dinosaurs never used tools), they adapt in real-time
>(memetic adaption) instead of requiring several generations
>(genetic adaption). And one primate species is currently the
>most dangerous animal ever to have lived on the planet Earth.
>
>The scaly guys can't beat that :-)
Warning: science rant begins.
We have no evidence to disprove the theory that some dinosaurs
may have reached a tool using level of development.
Also, dinosaurs thrived for over 200 million years, so far, h.
sapians has been around for barely half a million years.
By far, the dinosaurs remain the most successful large creatures
the world has ever seen.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"We are GURPS. You will be assimilated. We will add
your distinctive setting and background to our own. |
Resistance is futile."
Doug Berry
Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk>, wrote thusly:
>True. Comparing him to a mobile cannon would be better. What's
>it called, "a self-powered artillery piece" or something?
Self-propelled artillery.
And I like it this way.. If mages were easy to run, they'd be in
charge of everything! Mages are weak, and have to be played
intelligently to survive the first few levels.
Kallini
wrote:
>Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
>news:3991E8...@wizvax.net...
>>> So...from this perspective...how are the new rules?
>
>> Speaking as a playtester and a VERY long-term gamer
>> (since '77):
>
>> They're magnificent. An amazing bit of work, really,
>> keeping the basic flavor of D&D and, at the same time,
>> doing a TRULY major overhaul on the old beast, changing
>> or fixing many things that used to drive me insane.
>
>Does it still have:
>- quantum ability increases?
>- armour making you more difficult to hit?
>- hit points which don't cause any difficulties until the 0 transition?
>- ever-increasing hit points?
>- experience still coming from combat and looting for the most part?
>- mages forgetting their spells after casting them?
>
How about that Saving Throw system? I don't know how much that bothers
other people, but it always drove me crazy. I'm curious as to whether
D&D3 still has the system, and if it's changed at all...
Kallini
Doug Berry
"Klaus Ę. Mogensen" <klau...@get2net.dk>, wrote thusly:
>Some of my main beefs, which still remain, are:
>
>- Excalating hit points.
>
>- Armor that makes you harder to hit rather than protecting you
>from damage (which makes a padded suit of plate armor absolutely
>useless vs. a Fireball or other area effects).
I've handled this in the past with a set of house rules, which
I'll probably adapt to 3E once I see it.
Characters get bonuses to their intrinsic AC based on experience.
They also get more hit points, but at a much slower rate.
So a high-level fighter is going to get hit much less often than
a 1st-level kid, even if they are both wearing plate.
Aaron Day
>
> Aaron Day <aa...@cambertx.com> wrote in message
> news:B4BDA47D999FA376.B2E51969...@lp.airnews.net...
> >> The problem is whats its effect on the game. Although you can say that it
> >> makes sense, it encourages combat oriented gaming over other types of
> >> roleplaying.
>
> > Yes, but also encourages the players to actually seek out the adventure.
> > Its incredibly frustrating as a GM to have all the players sit around
> > and talk for four hours without advancing the plot I prepared, and then
> > expect to receive the full amount of XP (or whatever) because they were
> > "role-playing". Yuck.
>
> Problem 1: You shouldn't prepare a plot for your players to follow. You
> should offer plots (note the plural) they can involve themselves in and a
> setting which can support other ones in case they aren't interested in what
> you provided.
So, I should just throw random encounters at them?
> Problem 2: Are you sure you want to be playing role-playing games given
> your distaste for actual role-playing? Perhaps you might want to look at
> skirmish-level wargames. (Such wargames, after all, are what D&D evolved
> from. They're also what most D&D campaigns resemble anyway.)
I know, I'll invent a tactical wargame where each player has a model which represents an
individual warrior. As they progress through the scenario, they will get better and better
by gaining Experience Points (TM) by defeating monsters. How's that?
I don't mind role-playing, I just don't want it to get in the way of the GAME part.
Aaron
Michael T. Richter
news:eqv5psg72162ifv0v...@4ax.com...
>> Does it still have:
>> - quantum ability increases?
>> - armour making you more difficult to hit?
>> - hit points which don't cause any difficulties until the 0 transition?
>> - ever-increasing hit points?
>> - experience still coming from combat and looting for the most part?
>> - mages forgetting their spells after casting them?
> How about that Saving Throw system? I don't know how much that bothers
> other people, but it always drove me crazy. I'm curious as to whether
> D&D3 still has the system, and if it's changed at all...
Oops. I forgot about that smelly game turd.
Peter Meilinger
: Does it still have:
: - quantum ability increases?
: - armour making you more difficult to hit?
: - hit points which don't cause any difficulties until the 0 transition?
: - ever-increasing hit points?
: - experience still coming from combat and looting for the most part?
: - mages forgetting their spells after casting them?
: If it has any two of these, it is still of absolutely no interest to me
: whatsoever.
Then don't buy it.
Not being a smart-ass, honest.
:> Even the Fire And Forget system is somehow more palatable
:> now.
: Oops. Scratch that last one. Apparently it still has the magical
: equivalent of a fighter forgetting how to use his sword after hitting an
: opponent.
No, more like a fighter not being able to use his bow after running
out of arrows. Once he gets more arrows, he's back in business.
Mind you, I don't much care for the magic system either, but I think
my analogy is closer than yours.
Pete
Michael T. Richter
>> Problem 1: You shouldn't prepare a plot for your players to
>> follow. You should offer plots (note the plural) they can involve
>> themselves in and a setting which can support other ones in case
>> they aren't interested in what you provided.
> So, I should just throw random encounters at them?
No. You should "offer plots (note the plural) they can involve themselves
in and a setting which can support other ones." That was directly quoted
from the passage to which you responded. Try reading it again. Or for the
first time, for that matter.
> I don't mind role-playing, I just don't want it to get in the way of
> the GAME part.
The only thing which "gets in the way" is anything which reduces aggregate
enjoyment. Your players obviously enjoy the role-playing parts and don't
find it getting in the way. Maybe the problem is that you're a poor match
to your players and vice versa?
Michael T. Richter
news:8mv2ec$4fg$1...@news3.bu.edu...
>:> Even the Fire And Forget system is somehow more palatable
>:> now.
>: Oops. Scratch that last one. Apparently it still has the
>: magical equivalent of a fighter forgetting how to use his sword
>: after hitting an opponent.
> No, more like a fighter not being able to use his bow after running
> out of arrows. Once he gets more arrows, he's back in business.
No. The terminology used is "memorize" and "forget", not "load up" and "run
out". Your analogy is a poor fit.
Doug Dawson
<much snipping>
: Does it still have:
: - quantum ability increases?
I've never seen a game that didn't. Going from a 55% chance to pick
locks to 56% is a quantum increase. I don't think that's what you
mean though. What do you mean?
: - armour making you more difficult to hit?
Looks like it. They keep the rationale that it makes you more difficult
to hit in a way that causes damage, I believe. A problem I had with this
rationale before is that plate mail shouldn't make you harder to hit at
all, e.g., for a spell that requires touch. The glimpses I've seen
do things like break monster AC into the portion due to armor and the portion
due to agility, suggesting that if all you're trying to do is touch, you
ignore the armor part. A big step forward, I think.
: - hit points which don't cause any difficulties until the 0 transition?
As noted in an earlier post, I like this, but I understand why many folks
don't.
: - ever-increasing hit points?
I hate this.
: - experience still coming from combat and looting for the most part?
Dunno. It sounds like they've put more emphasis on the other stuff than
previously, but I don't know how much so.
: - mages forgetting their spells after casting them?
: If it has any two of these, it is still of absolutely no interest to me
: whatsoever.
: > Even the Fire And Forget system is somehow more palatable
: > now.
: Oops. Scratch that last one. Apparently it still has the magical
: equivalent of a fighter forgetting how to use his sword after hitting an
: opponent. That means if it has any one of the items above I will never buy,
: run or play the game.
The bits I've seen say that you don't forget the spell, but you lose the
ability to cast it: the mage's internal energies have to be specially
prepared to cast each spell, and casting resets this so that they have to
be configured again, through what amounts to meditation and ritual preparation.
Exact same mechanic, different rationalization...and I like the new one a lot
better.
Frankly, I've not played *D&D for about fifteen to eighteen years now, and
had no real interest in doing so. My friends, on the other hand, are having
a real nostalgia kick and the chance to play with an enthused group, including
people I've not played with before is what will get me to play. Even
with the improvements, it certainly wouldn't be my game of choice.
S. John Ross
| get xps" not "You're getting xps for defeating mosnters". I
| understand the new rules address this to some extent but up until
| now a DM has had no real guidance for awarding xp for combatless
| achievements.
That isn't true. AD&D always had rules for XP for acquiring treasure, too,
regardless of what was killed (or not) to get it.
--
|| S. John Ross
|| Husband · Cook · Writer
|| In That Order
|| http://www.cumberlandgames.com - Stuff For Gamers
John Kim
>> the thieving abilities go up all at once. That means picking pockets
>> over and over and over again somehow increases my ability to climb
>> walls. Hell, if my thief character goes around and just kills monsters
>> without once using thieving abilities they *STILL* all go up.
>
>from doing one thing can easily be used to learn something else.
It is true that most systems do not require that your XP go
only to skills used. On the other hand, in many systems, it is at
least *possible* to raise only the skills used -- using GM and/or
player judgement. i.e. In GURPS, if I had a thief-like character,
I could choose to raise pick pockets skill but not raise combat
abilities. This is not possible in AD&D2.
My experience with AD&D2 is that while bonuses for other
tasks are possible, the guidelines are such that killing monsters
is the only effective way to advance.
--
John H. Kim | Whatever else is true you
jh...@fnal.gov | Trust your little finger
www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim | Just a single little finger can
UC Irvine, Cal, USA | Save the world. - Steven Sondheim, "Assassins"
Aaron Day
>
> Aaron Day <aa...@cambertx.com> wrote in message
> news:F5D29FAC940E5B16.E8100D44...@lp.airnews.net...
> >> Problem 1: You shouldn't prepare a plot for your players to
> >> follow. You should offer plots (note the plural) they can involve
> >> themselves in and a setting which can support other ones in case
> >> they aren't interested in what you provided.
>
> > So, I should just throw random encounters at them?
>
> No. You should "offer plots (note the plural) they can involve themselves
> in and a setting which can support other ones." That was directly quoted
> from the passage to which you responded. Try reading it again. Or for the
> first time, for that matter.
How does a setting "offer plots"? How do plots spring forth out of the air? If a plot
exists, I, as the DM, has to make it so. So now, instead of spending the time and effort
to prepare for the nights adventure, I'm expected to prepare a vast amounts of adventures
just in case the players aren't too keen on seeking adventure because the game actively
discourages it. (i.e. deadly combat, no reward for vanquishing, rewards for disads which
screw the party, etc etc etc)
> > I don't mind role-playing, I just don't want it to get in the way of
> > the GAME part.
>
> The only thing which "gets in the way" is anything which reduces aggregate
> enjoyment. Your players obviously enjoy the role-playing parts and don't
> find it getting in the way. Maybe the problem is that you're a poor match
> to your players and vice versa?
Maybe you should read my post as well. Remember I said, "sitting around and talking for
four hours" ...
Its not that I'm a poor match for the players, its that the game was a poor match for my
style of play. D&D's XP system makes it a good match, hence my liking it.
Aaron
aetherson
jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu (John Kim) wrote:
> Ichabod <ich...@dmtcorp.com> wrote:
> >"Michael T. Richter" <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
> >> If my thief character does nothing but pick pockets, at level
change
> >> the thieving abilities go up all at once. That means picking
pockets
> >> over and over and over again somehow increases my ability to climb
> >> walls. Hell, if my thief character goes around and just kills
monsters
> >> without once using thieving abilities they *STILL* all go up.
> >
> >To be fair, there are very few systems which really deal with this
> >problem. In most games, even without level systems, experience you
get
> >from doing one thing can easily be used to learn something else.
>
> It is true that most systems do not require that your XP go
> only to skills used. On the other hand, in many systems, it is at
> least *possible* to raise only the skills used -- using GM and/or
> player judgement. i.e. In GURPS, if I had a thief-like character,
> I could choose to raise pick pockets skill but not raise combat
> abilities. This is not possible in AD&D2.
That's okay. In AD&D2, you'd have an awfully tough time rising in
levels without using your combat abilities. Aren't you thrilled?
And in GURPS, you wouldn't need to raise your combat abilities, because
your high DX would already make you a combat monster.
> My experience with AD&D2 is that while bonuses for other
> tasks are possible, the guidelines are such that killing monsters
> is the only effective way to advance.
Then why were you complaining about raising your combat abilities?
Yeesh. It's impossible to please people, these days.
AD&D has always assumed that combat will be a big part of any game. I
don't see anything wrong with that -- it certainly seems to be one area
in which it's unquestionably good at simulating Conan, Farhfrd and the
Gray Mouser, and the Lord of the Rings. So they use combat as a useful
yardstick to measure how many interesting activities have been going
on. If you assume that combat is a major part of the storyline of the
game, if nobody's engaging in combat, the storyline must not be
advancing. Hence, no XP for you. Tah-dah. AD&D2 is the perfect
dramatist game.
Mike (aetherson)
(Tongue firmly in cheek)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Blackberry
2000 14:09:04 -0500 reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>Håvard Rønne Faanes wrote:
>>
>> The problem is whats its effect on the game. Although you can say that it
>> makes sense, it encourages combat oriented gaming over other types of
>> roleplaying.
>
>Yes, but also encourages the players to actually seek out the adventure. Its
>incredibly
>frustrating as a GM to have all the players sit around and talk for four hours
>without
>advancing the plot I prepared, and then expect to receive the full amount of XP
>(or
>whatever) because they were "role-playing". Yuck.
Here's a solution for you: prepare a plot that *isn't* based on slaughtering
monsters. :)
--------------------
"It's enough to make you wonder sometimes if you're on the right planet."
-- Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Brian -- le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com -- remove "NOSPAM"
m@ng
> Generally the complaint reads "You have to defeat monsters TO
>get xps" not "You're getting xps for defeating mosnters". I
>understand the new rules address this to some extent but up until
>now a DM has had no real guidance for awarding xp for combatless
>achievements.
In 3E they do explicitly mention awarding *no* XP for combat several
times.
If anybody is interested in reading the XP guidelines, they're actually
online at http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_DMG_XPFinal.asp
Skip down to "Variant: Story Awards" for the non-combat stuff.
Doug Dawson
: news:8mv2ec$4fg$1...@news3.bu.edu...
: >:> Even the Fire And Forget system is somehow more palatable
: >:> now.
: >: Oops. Scratch that last one. Apparently it still has the
: >: magical equivalent of a fighter forgetting how to use his sword
: >: after hitting an opponent.
: > No, more like a fighter not being able to use his bow after running
: > out of arrows. Once he gets more arrows, he's back in business.
: No. The terminology used is "memorize" and "forget", not "load up" and "run
: out". Your analogy is a poor fit.
And here's the core of what I was saying before...they've changed
the terminology, though not the mechanic. Now you "prepare" a spell,
not "memorize," and when you cast it, it's "used up," not "forgotten."
Michael T. Richter
news:8mv0j0$obf$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu...
>: Does it still have:
>: - quantum ability increases?
> I've never seen a game that didn't. Going from a 55% chance to pick
> locks to 56% is a quantum increase. I don't think that's what you
> mean though. What do you mean?
Sorry. "Coarse quantum" is what I meant. As in does EVERYTHING go up at
once, or can characters develop in one single skill.
>: - armour making you more difficult to hit?
> Looks like it. They keep the rationale that it makes you more
> difficult to hit in a way that causes damage, I believe.
And that approach means, once again, that because of the twin peril of
armour making your harder to hit and hit points not representing actual
injuries, in D&D making your "to hit" roll doesn't necessarily mean you've
made contact and not making your "to hit" roll doesn't necessarily mean
you've failed to make contact.
> A problem I had with this rationale before is that plate mail
> shouldn't make you harder to hit at all, e.g., for a spell that
> requires touch.
My problem with this showed up when I tried to introduce a "counting coup"
style of warfare in a campaign and couldn't with the rules as printed.
>: - experience still coming from combat and looting for the most part?
> Dunno. It sounds like they've put more emphasis on the other stuff than
> previously, but I don't know how much so.
I suspect that you'll find the majority of experience coming from killing
things and looting their bodies/homes still.
>:> Even the Fire And Forget system is somehow more palatable
>:> now.
>: Oops. Scratch that last one. Apparently it still has the magical
>: equivalent of a fighter forgetting how to use his sword after
>: hitting an opponent. That means if it has any one of the items
>: above I will never buy, run or play the game.
> The bits I've seen say that you don't forget the spell, but you lose
> the ability to cast it: the mage's internal energies have to be
> specially prepared to cast each spell, and casting resets this so
> that they have to be configured again, through what amounts to
> meditation and ritual preparation. Exact same mechanic, different
> rationalization...and I like the new one a lot better.
The new one still bites as a magic system, however.
Sidhain
> >:> Even the Fire And Forget system is somehow more palatable
> >:> now.
>
> >: Oops. Scratch that last one. Apparently it still has the
> >: magical equivalent of a fighter forgetting how to use his sword
> >: after hitting an opponent.
>
> > out of arrows. Once he gets more arrows, he's back in business.
>
> No. The terminology used is "memorize" and "forget", not "load up" and "run
> out". Your analogy is a poor fit.
>
>
But they were just word to describe the effect--not the actual "in game" mechanic..
Michael T. Richter
news:2vv5psgc00p0t4v9f...@4ax.com...
> In 3E they do explicitly mention awarding *no* XP for combat
> several times.
> If anybody is interested in reading the XP guidelines, they're
> actually online at http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_DMG_XPFinal.asp
> Skip down to "Variant: Story Awards" for the non-combat stuff.
"When the party defeats monsters, the DM awards them experience points (XP).
The more dangerous the monsters, compared to the party's level, the more XP
the characters earn. The PCs split the XP between themselves, and each
character increases in level as his or her personal XP total increases."
I don't actually see anything about rewarding no XP for combat. I do see,
however, that awards for role-playing are to be kept minuscule:
"Roleplaying XP awards are purely ad hoc. That is, there is no system for
assigning Challenge Ratings to bits of roleplaying. The awards should be
just large enough for the player to notice them, probably no more than 50 XP
per character level per adventure."
Oops. There is a bit about not getting XPs for combat. Here it is:
"You can handle story awards in one of two ways. The first is to make all
awards story awards. Thus, killing monsters would earn no experience in and
of itself-although it may allow characters to achieve what they need to do
in order to earn the story awards. If you follow this method, you should
still pay attention to how many experience points the characters would be
earning by defeating enemies so that you can make sure the PCs' treasure
totals are in line with what they should be earning."
So you can choose not to hand out XPs for combat, but you should make sure
that the XPs you hand out reflect the amount of XPs they would have received
for combat. Personally I don't see a big difference here.
Sidhain
> Problem 1: You shouldn't prepare a plot for your players to follow. You
> should offer plots (note the plural) they can involve themselves in and a
> setting which can support other ones in case they aren't interested in what
> you provided.
Problem one> He can run a game any way he damn well pleases, it's not up to YOU to dictate to
him how he should GM.
>
> Problem 2: Are you sure you want to be playing role-playing games given
> your distaste for actual role-playing? Perhaps you might want to look at
> skirmish-level wargames. (Such wargames, after all, are what D&D evolved
> from. They're also what most D&D campaigns resemble anyway.)
>
>
I agree with this completely no problem two...:)
Michael T. Richter
>> No. You should "offer plots (note the plural) they can involve
>> themselves in and a setting which can support other ones." That
>> was directly quoted from the passage to which you responded. Try
>> reading it again. Or for the first time, for that matter.
> How does a setting "offer plots"?
One last time before I drop you into the happy box.
I said YOU should offer plots AND that you should supply a setting which
SUPPORTS other plots. I'll break this down in case you're being terminally
thick instead of deliberately obtuse:
1) You should have had more than 1 potential plot provided. Given the group
you've described vs. your described tastes, you should have at least one of
them not involve going around and killing things.
2) You should also have a sufficiently evocative setting so that you can
ad-lib a (probably simple) plot if your players decide the prepared plots
aren't to their liking.
>> The only thing which "gets in the way" is anything which reduces
>> aggregate enjoyment. Your players obviously enjoy the role-playing
>> parts and don't find it getting in the way. Maybe the problem is
>> that you're a poor match to your players and vice versa?
> Maybe you should read my post as well. Remember I said, "sitting around
> and talking for four hours" ...
And apparently they liked it while you didn't. I still submit that your
GMing style is a poor match for their playing style.
Michael T. Richter
news:SNEk5.2391$3M.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> Problem 1: You shouldn't prepare a plot for your players to
>> involve themselves in and a setting which can support other
> Problem one> He can run a game any way he damn well pleases, it's
> not up to YOU to dictate to him how he should GM.
Since their seems to be a profusion of denseness here today, I'll explain
the obvious still further by rewording it with all the assumed conditionals
(obvious from context) in place.
Problem 1: If you want your players to follow something you've plotted you
have to take into account the fact that they won't like everything you
prepare. For any given session, you'll get far less frustration if you a)
prepare more than one plot in advance and b) provide a setting which can
suggest plots at run-time if the players ignore all of your prepared plots.
Tim Serpas
>| : I'd call that AD&D v1.1 (PH, DMG plus Unearthed Arcanna; v1.2
>| : when you get Oriental Adventures and nonweapon proficiencies,
>| : IIRC...). Zero HP might not mean character loss, but it does
>| : put you out of the fight 100%, but with any positive number
>| : of HP, you are in the fight 100%.
>
>The rule was in the DMG, p.82
D'oh! Burn on me!
-W
Michael T. Richter
news:8mv59c$8an$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> AD&D has always assumed that combat will be a big part of any game. I
> don't see anything wrong with that -- it certainly seems to be one area
> in which it's unquestionably good at simulating Conan, Farhfrd and the
> Gray Mouser, and the Lord of the Rings.
Conan, Farhfrd (sp?), etc. yes. Lord of the Rings, no. Lord of the Rings
was quite unlike the previously mentioned stories in this regard. Yes there
was combat. No it wasn't the focus of the story.
m@ng
>How about that Saving Throw system? I don't know how much that bothers
>other people, but it always drove me crazy. I'm curious as to whether
>D&D3 still has the system, and if it's changed at all...
D&D3 has three saving throws: Reflex, Will, and Fortitude. They're
expressed as bonuses to a d20 roll. If you roll above the Difficulty
Class for whatever it is threatening the character, the results aren't
so bad.
Peter Knutsen
Håvard Rønne Faanes wrote:
> There are other ways to reflect in a system that combat increases your
> combat abilities. The Basic Roleplaying System used in Cthulhu, RuneQuest
> and Pendragon for instance has rules that mean that using a skill
> frequently will raise this skill. Other systems have similar methods to
> relfect experience.
That method is highly problematic. IMO more problematic than the
combat-reward or challenge-reward used in *D&D.
> Håvard
--
Peter Knutsen
Charlton Wilbur
> The problem with that is, players will have their characters use
> skills just to *raise* them. Just as bad as killing and looting fo
> xp's.
Huh? In the real world, when I want to improve my Piano-Playing
skill, I practice playing the piano. When I want to improve my
Bread-Making skill, I read up about bread recipes and try out a new
one to see how it works. I don't see why characters who want to
improve their Sneaking skills or their Acrobatics skills shouldn't be
expected to practice them as well.
It's entirely possible to create a game where character advancement is
done by figuring out how much time the character spends doing any
given thing - indeed, the Time Use Charts from GURPS are an attempt to
do just that, and it's a moderately workable one. Experience points
are not the only answer.
I suspect if I were to run AD&D now, I'd probably just give out fixed
XPs on a regular basis - after each session, each character gets 15%
of his current XP added to the total, or something like that. But
then, in my view, roleplaying is its own reward, and if someone needs
the incentive of an additional 2000 XP to motivate him to roleplay,
he's probably better off playing Diablo.
Charlton
Aaron Day
>
> > How does a setting "offer plots"?
>
> SUPPORTS other plots. I'll break this down in case you're being terminally
> thick instead of deliberately obtuse:
If you read more than just one sentence of my reply ...
> >> The only thing which "gets in the way" is anything which reduces
> >> aggregate enjoyment. Your players obviously enjoy the role-playing
> >> parts and don't find it getting in the way. Maybe the problem is
> >> that you're a poor match to your players and vice versa?
>
> > Maybe you should read my post as well. Remember I said, "sitting around
> > and talking for four hours" ...
>
> And apparently they liked it while you didn't. I still submit that your
> GMing style is a poor match for their playing style.
I think the misunderstanding is that when I say "sitting around and talking for four
hours", I mean they spent most of their time talking about stuff that had nothing at all
to do with the game. It wasn't that they were a poor match for my "playing style", its
just that the game actively discourages the players from taking risks because there are no
rewards for doing so.
The XP system, as presented in D&D, on the other hand, actively encourages the player to
seek out whatever adventure (or adventures) I have prepared because they gain little or
nothing unless they do so. It helps me because its easier to prepare for the game and it
helps the players because they run through an adventure which has been thought out. It
helps the campaign because it makes it easier for me to keep the game focused with any
meta-plots or world-wide events.
That is why I like the XP system which, fortunately, is still present in D&D.
Aaron
Michael T. Richter
news:m366p8v...@h00a0cc3fcbb6.ne.mediaone.net...
> ... if someone needs the incentive of an additional 2000 XP to
> motivate him to roleplay, he's probably better off playing Diablo.
This is a very good sound bite.
Peter Knutsen
"S. John Ross" wrote:
>
> | The problem is whats its effect on the game. Although you can say that it
> | makes sense, it encourages combat oriented gaming over other types of
> | roleplaying.
>
> D&D is a combat-oriented game. If it failed to encourage its own style of
> play, it would be doing something seriously wrong. I don't think the AD&D
> experience system "makes sense" at all from a realism point of view, but I
> think it makes perfect sense in the context of the game's very clear goals
> (where realism takes an appropriately minuscule level of priority, and a bit
One thing is that characters in AD&D may develop in a less than
realistic way, or that the connection between their activities
and their development is not quite realistic.
But the Runequest system leads to unrealistic character behaviour,
where the characters tries to use all their skills as much as
possible even when it doesn't make sense to try using those
skills within the context of the game world.
I find that unacceptable. Totally unacceptable.
The solution to the Runequest problem is that the GM must, in each
and every case that a character uses any skill once, form an
opinions on whether that attemp to use the skill was worthy
enough to grant a chance of skill advancement.
I find it equally unacceptable that the opinion of the GM
influences the fate of my character (such at the rate which
the competence of my character increases).
The Quest FRP system that I use gives rewards for overcoming
challenges, you get an EP reward based on how "difficult"
the adventure was. And this sum is then distributed between
the skills used by the character during the adventure. (The
characters can also train and study and work when they are not
adventuring, gaining EPs in specific skills that way). The
Operations Manual seems to suggest that "challenge" is how big a
military treat the opposition is. It does mention that certain
roleplaying styles may benefit from using a different experience
gaining system.
I've made a couple of changes, since I've found that yes, the
proposed system does not fit my campaign style, so I've made the
following changes (this is a brief description, I have a huge
document describing the procedures in excruciating detail)
1. The characters are rewarded for the largest "military"
challenge they've overcome during the adventure. They get a
sum of EPs for this.
2. The characters are rewarded for the largest "non-military"
challenge overcome. If there was no risk of death or severe
physical harm, the EPs for this are halved. A non-military
challenge is anything that is even remotely difficult, but
which does not involve swords, bows or violent magic.
3. The characters are awarded a small sum of EPs because
their players showed up.
4. The characters are awared bonus EPs for exceptionally good
roleplaying, i.e. creating realistic behaviour for their
characters. Ony roleplaying beyond the expected norm is rewarded.
5. The characters are awared bonus EPs if they reach personal
goals. The players are free to define goals, and the GM assigns
an EP value to each goal based on how difficult it is to reach.
> AD&D may be crappy for doing Ars Magica style gaming or Pendragon style
> gaming or even RuneQuest style gaming (really, it depends on what kind of RQ
> we're talking about ... ), but there are reasons why its never been toppled
> from its particular hill, and it's only partly attributable to its position
> in the earliest family of RPG games, and TSR's (and then WotCs) attention to
> marketing and continual improvement of production values.
They did get to the market first, and thus people got the idea that
roleplaying was supposed to feel like AD&D. It's like starting with
a shitty brand of soft drink (or beer), and then saying that other
drinks are bad because they don't have the taste you expect.
> || S. John Ross
--
Peter Knutsen
Rick Jones
> How about that Saving Throw system? I don't know how much that bothers
> other people, but it always drove me crazy. I'm curious as to whether
> D&D3 still has the system, and if it's changed at all...
It's changed. There's now 3 types of saves. A Reflex save (for
dodging out of the way), a Willpower save (for throwing off mind
control type stuff) and a Stamina (or something like that) save,
for resisting poisons and such. Much better than the old system,
IMHO.
--
Rick Jones He's a complicated man...
ri...@blkbox.com but no one understands him but his Wookie.
http://www.blkbox.com/~rick --Han "Shaft" Solo, by Ginger Stampley
Michael T. Richter
> I think the misunderstanding is that when I say "sitting around and
> talking for four hours", I mean they spent most of their time talking
> about stuff that had nothing at all to do with the game.
Yes, it was indeed unclear that you were talking about off-topic speech.
That seems to have been the core of the misunderstanding, compounded further
by the seemingly disparaging remark about wanting XPs for role-playing.
> That is why I like the XP system which, fortunately, is still present
> in D&D.
And which remains the reason why I dislike the XP system -- precisely
because it encourages the type of play which makes me yawn uncontrollably:
long dice rolling competitions. For dice rolling competitions I prefer
Button Men. It's more elegant than D&D, plays more quickly than D&D and
offers about as much of the role-playing experience as D&D.
aetherson
It may not have been the focus of the story, but there was a good deal
of it going around. It would be perfectly appropriate to judge the
progression of the LotR storyline by how many fights have broken out.
Indeed, both LotR and the Hobbit had climaxes that were combatative in
nature, even though LotR's was really kinda shoehorned in in order to
make the climax dramatic.
Mike (aetherson)
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> Warning: science rant begins.
>
> We have no evidence to disprove the theory that some dinosaurs
> may have reached a tool using level of development.
Much like we have no evidence to disprove that at some
times some pigs fly just by thinking really hard about it.
> By far, the dinosaurs remain the most successful large creatures
> the world has ever seen.
Define "successful" and "large".
Charlton Wilbur
(in response to Michael Richter)
> > No. You should "offer plots (note the plural) they can involve themselves
> > in and a setting which can support other ones." That was directly quoted
> > from the passage to which you responded. Try reading it again. Or for the
> > first time, for that matter.
>
> How does a setting "offer plots"? How do plots spring forth out of
> the air? If a plot exists, I, as the DM, has to make it so. So now,
> instead of spending the time and effort to prepare for the nights
> adventure, I'm expected to prepare a vast amounts of adventures just
> in case the players aren't too keen on seeking adventure because the
> game actively discourages it. (i.e. deadly combat, no reward for
> vanquishing, rewards for disads which screw the party, etc etc etc)
Instead of thinking about what happens like so:
- the party are in a tavern
- they meet a bard, who tells them of a cave to the north with secret
treasure; they decide to head north
- they meet a band of bandits on the road north
- they're attacked by some wild animals on the road north
- the cave is crawling with orcs; they fight, get the treasure, and go
home.
A very linear plot.
Instead, think about 3 or 4 things that might come up, but don't flesh
all of them out in excruciating detail. Also, think about things that
might happen *independent* of the main plot.
In your kingdom, suppose there's a problem with succession in a duchy
to the east, and bandits and orcs raiding to the north. Maybe that
same bard is talking about that same cave, and there's a military
officer from the Duchy of Irone recruiting mercenaries to support the
*true* heir to the ducal seat. There's also a very distraught woman
whose husband and sons were kidnapped by orcs, and she's offering a
huge reward to anyone who helps her rescue them (they didn't see her,
because she managed to hide). And there's a trader looking to hire
caravan guards to escort his caravan north through bandit country.
Now, to prepare for a night's adventure, you work up an encounter with
orcs, an encounter with bandits -- they can both be used if the party
travels north. You make up 2 or 3 generic soldier-type NPCs - if the
party decides to sign on with the trader or the officer, they become
the PCs' comrades in arms. You have a map of the lands to the north
and east, and encounter tables for both of them -- it's several days'
travel, and you never know what you might run into on the road. There
isn't that much more preparation involved for this than for the linear
plot above - you just think about using every encounter in more than
one possible way. Also, if you have a generic bandit-encounter
writeup, you can then modify it slightly and reuse it as an encounter
with the Evil Pretender Virgil of Irone's highwaymen, and the PCs will
never know the difference.
Once you've run the night's adventure, you know what the PCs are
interested in - maybe they went with the woman to fight orcs, maybe
they signed on with the rightful Duke of Irone, maybe they signed on
with the traders, maybe they signed on with the bard. Whatever
they've done, you have a week to prepare for the next session.
There are several advantages to this. One is that the world feels
more real to the players. Maybe in a year, events in the Duchy of
Irone will turn into a full-scale war. Maybe actual heroes will clean
out the bandits and get a huge reward from the King - or maybe the
bandits will get so bad that the King offers a thousand-ducat reward
to anyone who brings him the heads and swords of five bandits. Maybe
the orcs, sick of fighting, will send an ambassador to the human king
to negotiate. There is so much to do out there that the PCs *can't*
do all of it, and (almost paradoxically) that makes the world seem
more real, especially if problems get solved by other people.
You can also develop later plots more easily. Maybe, a year from now,
the woman whose son and husband were kidnapped will be working in that
same tavern, because nobody rescued her menfolk. (Or maybe she will
be *the* swordswoman in the area, because in the absence of
adventurers to rescue her menfolk, she strapped on a sword and did it
herself, single-handedly routing a tribe of orcs.) And either way,
she'll remember the PCs as people who could have helped her, and
didn't.
Finally, your players have more say in what happens. Instead of
following the bard because they know it's all you've got prepared for
the session, they can choose the way their characters act. This, to
me, is the crucial point of role-playing: how do you know a character
is a staunch supporter of the monarchy if he never gets the chance to
choose whether to fight for the rightful Duke of Irone or the Evil
Pretender? Or how do you know he's chivalrous and noble if he never
has to choose between slaying bandits for money and slaying orcs for a
woman's honor?
If all you want is a bunch of skirmishes, this isn't for you. But if
your players are content to sit around and talk in-character for four
hours, then an approach like this might give the lot of you a mixed
approach to the game - instead of now, where it seems like you want to
skirmish and your players want to roleplay.
Charlton
Bokman7757
incredibly
frustrating as a GM to have all the players sit around and talk for four hours
without
advancing the plot I prepared, and then expect to receive the full amount of XP
(or
whatever) because they were "role-playing". Yuck. >>
I've never heard of a good system where that sort of thing is encouraged. Most
games do require the characters to actually do *something* to get experience.
Bokman7757
from damage (which makes a padded suit of plate armor absolutely
useless vs. a Fireball or other area effects). >>
To some degree it would be (I wouldn't want to be wearing metal armor when I
get hit by a Fireball....)
Bokman7757
spells (memorizing) >>
Called preparation now. Slightly different connotation.
Bokman7757
equivalent of a fighter forgetting how to use his sword after hitting an
opponent. >>
Not "memorization", "preparation."
And if you know so much about how magic *really* works....
Sea Wasp
>
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
> news:3991E8...@wizvax.net..
> >> So...from this perspective...how are the new rules?
>
> > Speaking as a playtester and a VERY long-term gamer
> > (since '77):
>
> > They're magnificent. An amazing bit of work, really,
> > keeping the basic flavor of D&D and, at the same time,
> > doing a TRULY major overhaul on the old beast, changing
> > or fixing many things that used to drive me insane.
>
> Does it still have:
> - quantum ability increases?
> - ever-increasing hit points?
> - experience still coming from combat and looting for the most part?
Without some form of these, it wouldn't be D&D.
Experience now can be gotten for whatever it is that the characters
DO.
Quantum ability increases.... those are in every game I've ever
played, I think. Aside from ones that don't pay any attention to
abilities, which are vanishingly rare if extant at all. Amber doesn't
take much into account for skills, but powers and stats....
Armor making you more difficult to hit... that's a common one too.
The HP=1 to Zero shift is a wierdie, true. And I don't recall any
change in it. Doesn't mean it isn't there.
Ever-increasing HP, yes. One of the few things I really griped at
them about. I tried to get them to accept the old Arduin system or a
variant thereof, but no joy.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Sea Wasp
>
> Doug Dawson <ddda...@lpl.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> news:8mv0j0$obf$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu..
> >: - quantum ability increases?
>
> > locks to 56% is a quantum increase. I don't think that's what you
> > mean though. What do you mean?
>
> Sorry. "Coarse quantum" is what I meant. As in does EVERYTHING go up at
> once, or can characters develop in one single skill.
Yes, you can. And pick and choose skills and heroic feats.
Adam Benedict Canning
Ichabod wrote:
>
> In article <ZeCk5.63445$UO.1...@news22.bellglobal.com>, "Michael T.
> Richter" <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>
> > Then there's the granularity issue. If my thief character does nothing but
> > pick pockets, at level change the thieving abilities go up all at once.
> > That means picking pockets over and over and over again somehow increases my
> > ability to climb walls. Hell, if my thief character goes around and just
> > kills monsters without once using thieving abilities they *STILL* all go up.
> > This is just loopy.
>
> To be fair, there are very fe systems which really deal with this
> problem. In most games, even without level systems, experience
> you get from doing one thing can easily be used to learn something
> else.
Basic Roleplaying. IE Runequest. also the GURPs practice rules.
Adam
Marc el Kato
Blackberry <le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:8munhn$1i...@edrn.newsguy.com...
> That's true, but what if you're a low-level wizard? AD&D (at least 1st
ed) is
> structured such that the character delivering the killing blow gets 100%
of the
> experience for the monster. How often is a Knock spell going to off a
monster?
> If you don't make a house rule to split the XP equally, then the wizard
isn't
> going to get better at anything.
Excuse me, but could you actually address the problem I raised? I didn't
ask, "Why shouldn't monster killing be the only way to gain xp?" I asked
what was wrong with getting XPs for killing monsters, big difference there.
--
Marc el Kato
Adam Benedict Canning
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>
> tg...@XXXX.sympatico.ca (Michael Ball) writes:
>
> > The problem with that is, players will have their characters use
> > skills just to *raise* them. Just as bad as killing and looting fo
> > xp's.
>
> Huh? In the real world, when I want to improve my Piano-Playing
> skill, I practice playing the piano. When I want to improve my
> Bread-Making skill, I read up about bread recipes and try out a new
> one to see how it works. I don't see why characters who want to
> improve their Sneaking skills or their Acrobatics skills shouldn't be
> expected to practice them as well.
>
> It's entirely possible to create a game where character advancement is
> done by figuring out how much time the character spends doing any
> given thing -
Which was why Runequest had practice and research as well as experience
[and somethings could only use some methods.]
Adam
Adam Benedict Canning
Kallini wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:26:18 GMT, "Michael T. Richter" <m...@igs.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
> >news:3991E8...@wizvax.net...
> >>> So...from this perspective...how are the new rules?
> >
> >> Speaking as a playtester and a VERY long-term gamer
> >> (since '77):
> >
> >> They're magnificent. An amazing bit of work, really,
> >> keeping the basic flavor of D&D and, at the same time,
> >> doing a TRULY major overhaul on the old beast, changing
> >> or fixing many things that used to drive me insane.
> >
> >Does it still have:
> >- quantum ability increases?
> >- armour making you more difficult to hit?
> >- hit points which don't cause any difficulties until the 0 transition?
> >- ever-increasing hit points?
> >- experience still coming from combat and looting for the most part?
> >- mages forgetting their spells after casting them?
> >
>
> How about that Saving Throw system? I don't know how much that bothers
> other people, but it always drove me crazy. I'm curious as to whether
> D&D3 still has the system, and if it's changed at all...
There are now only 3 types of saving throw. one of which would be better
dealt with by using AC.
Adam