d20 system opinions
crichmon
I'm thinking about modelling a lot of my game based on the d20 system. I
was wondering what people's opinions about the d20 system were, and if it
would be worthwhile to pursue?
thanks,
crichmon
David Damerell
>I'm thinking about modelling a lot of my game based on the d20 system. I
>was wondering what people's opinions about the d20 system were, and if it
>would be worthwhile to pursue?
It's not a bad place to start, but a lot of the timing/action stuff is
designed for long turns (with multiple attacks, &c) rather than
roguelike-style "one dot of movement at a time" turns. You'd have some
thinking to do.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Per I Mathisen
> I'm thinking about modelling a lot of my game based on the d20
> system. I was wondering what people's opinions about the d20 system
> were, and if it would be worthwhile to pursue?
You should be aware that Wizards of the Coast expressly forbids using
the D20 system in computer games. They also try to prevent anyone from
using OGL stuff in computer games - if don't know what you are doing,
then don't.
That is quite unfortunate, because D20 has a long going for it, and is
especially well-suited for computer games. I once planned to write a
rogue-like with D20 rules myself, only to find this problem. I then
started to write an alternative to D20 and a software library to
support it, instead. Contact me if interested.
--
Per I Mathisen
(reply by mail to per at leftist dot net - all mail to
dev...@leftist.net is junked)
Raymond Martineau
<dev...@leftist.net> wrote:
>crichmon wrote:
>> I'm thinking about modelling a lot of my game based on the d20
>> system. I was wondering what people's opinions about the d20 system
>> were, and if it would be worthwhile to pursue?
>
>You should be aware that Wizards of the Coast expressly forbids using
>the D20 system in computer games.
From what I can tell, yes, but...
>They also try to prevent anyone from
>using OGL stuff in computer games - if don't know what you are doing,
>then don't.
The OGL States:
:4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this
:License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free,
:non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the
:Open Game Content.
From the definitions given in section 1, it appears that they've already
given permission to use the content of D20 within any computer game. Given
the wording of the license, it's not exactly as revokable as it could be
(it can cause problems for WotC.)
The D20 content isn't complete either - it does not contain information for
creating a character or for appling experience points to a character. If
desired, one can write their own rules concerning these events - if they
are different from the Core DND system, then there should be no problem
from WotC.
This is the same company that once attempted to claim copyright on a
Fireball damage table through public announcements. I'm not sure on the
results, but it did make people a bit unconfortable that basic facts were
copyrighted.
Chipacabra
news:jbhqa0tnavtn49uh2...@4ax.com:
>
> The OGL States:
>
>:4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this
>:License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide,
>:royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this
>:License to Use, the Open Game Content.
>
> From the definitions given in section 1, it appears that they've
> already given permission to use the content of D20 within any computer
> game. Given the wording of the license, it's not exactly as revokable
> as it could be (it can cause problems for WotC.)
The OGL and the D20 license are not the same thing. You can make a game
using material from the SRD with no problem, so long as it does not say
anything about being D20 or use any of the trademarks. If you use the OGL,
you also have to make the rules readily available, in a readable format.
Martin Read
>the D20 system in computer games. They also try to prevent anyone from
>using OGL stuff in computer games - if don't know what you are doing,
>then don't.
You do know that game mechanics aren't subject to copyright, right?
m.
--
\_\/_/| Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\ / | mein herz gebuerz die qual ein alleletztes mal
\/ | ein toter musikant spielt das stille lied
------+ -- das ich, "destillat"
Kornel Kisieleiwcz
D20 and it's
a-begginng-warrior-dies-after-one-shot-but-a-20-level-warrior-can-survive-a-
hit-by-a-speeding-train system sucks. Go for GURPS instead ;). Honestly
though. People love powerlevelling. And I can't blame them. D20 isn't a bad
choice for that. Take a look on Unearthed Arcana though - i much better like
this edition of d20 core then DnD.
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Chipacabra
news:c8lenr$hpk$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net:
> crichmon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm thinking about modelling a lot of my game based on the d20
>> system. I was wondering what people's opinions about the d20 system
>> were, and if it would be worthwhile to pursue?
>
> D20 and it's
> a-begginng-warrior-dies-after-one-shot-but-a-20-level-warrior-can-survi
> ve-a- hit-by-a-speeding-train system sucks.
Please don't rant about a game system sucking because you don't understand
them. It is very annoying to the people that do understand and enjoy it.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
wrote on Thu, 20 May 2004 18:02:25 +0000 (UTC):
> crichmon wrote:
>> I'm thinking about modelling a lot of my game based on the d20
>> system. I was wondering what people's opinions about the d20 system
>> were, and if it would be worthwhile to pursue?
> You should be aware that Wizards of the Coast expressly forbids using
> the D20 system in computer games. They also try to prevent anyone from
> using OGL stuff in computer games - if don't know what you are doing,
> then don't.
> That is quite unfortunate, because D20 has a long going for it, and is
> especially well-suited for computer games.
Well, this is somewhat true. It's a terrible tabletop RPG; I don't
get the appeal there at all. OTOH, it is a reasonable tactical wargame,
it's just too complex to play comfortably on tabletop. A computer
tactical wargame based on it would be workable.
But there are other systems (better ones, even) that don't have WotC's
license issues, and don't have their rabid lawyers looking for an excuse
to kill you and take your stuff.
My Phobos RPG system <http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/Phobos/>
is free for non-commercial use, and I'm not extortionate about
commercial use. I've used variations of it in Umbra and Hephaestus, so
it is a viable CRPG system. My new game engine uses a new system that
I'll also be publishing under the same license.
Dominion RPG <http://www.dominiongames.com/> is completely free, and
it's a very detailed game system.
FUDGE <http://www.fudgerpg.com/> is free, though you may have to stick
to the 1995 edition of the rules to make a commercial game from it.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"Doing the impossible makes us mighty." -Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly
Kornel Kisieleiwcz
I don't understand it? Geesh, you've made i big mistake here ;). I was
raised on DnD 2ed. I've played DnD, ADnD, ADnD 2ed, and have DnD 3rd ed on
my shelf both in polish and the original. I used to love the game... I wrote
articles about it, I've spend many nights designing dungeons and
wildernesses... But I grew out of it. Sad but true. I still have fond
memories of that time, but for me the whole system is both unrealistic (no
one will argue about that) and useful mainly for monstger bashing. I'm tired
of mindless dungeon exploration and powerleveling...
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Chipacabra
> Chipacabra wrote:
>> "Kornel Kisieleiwcz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote in
>> news:c8lenr$hpk$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net:
>>
>>> crichmon wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking about modelling a lot of my game based on the d20
>>>> system. I was wondering what people's opinions about the d20
>>>> system were, and if it would be worthwhile to pursue?
>>>
>>> D20 and it's
>>> a-begginng-warrior-dies-after-one-shot-but-a-20-level-warrior-can-sur
>>> vi ve-a- hit-by-a-speeding-train system sucks.
>>
>> Please don't rant about a game system sucking because you don't
>> understand them. It is very annoying to the people that do understand
>> and enjoy it.
>
> I don't understand it? Geesh, you've made i big mistake here ;). I was
> raised on DnD 2ed. I've played DnD, ADnD, ADnD 2ed, and have DnD 3rd
> ed on my shelf both in polish and the original. I used to love the
> game... I wrote articles about it, I've spend many nights designing
> dungeons and wildernesses... But I grew out of it. Sad but true. I
> still have fond memories of that time, but for me the whole system is
> both unrealistic (no one will argue about that) and useful mainly for
> monstger bashing. I'm tired of mindless dungeon exploration and
> powerleveling...
So you played it a long time, it doesn't mean you understand it. There's
plenty of stuff in AD&D 1e and 2e to have screwed up your preconceptions.
Saying that a beginning warrior dies with one shot is wrong. 10+con-bonus
hit points is plenty to survive even a critical hit from, say, a
longsword.
Your description of the hit point mechanic shows a woeful
misunderstanding of what hit points represent. More hit points do NOT
mean that you can take more damage. More hit points mean that the same
hit hurts you less. A level 2 fighter takes proportionally half as much
damage from the same sword wound, not because he is tougher but because
he is more skilled. He rolls with the hit. He takes it on the shoulder
instead of the gut, or whatever. Think Cohen the Barbarian, rather than
Conan the Barbarian.
Unrealistic? No system is unrealistic. All that matters is if the game
creates BELIEVABLE end results, and D20 manages that just fine if you
don't get screwed up on these misconceptions.
As for mindless dungeon exploration and powerlevelling: 1) They're the
sign of a lack of imagination. You can play a perfectly enjoyable D20
game of politics and intrigue. 2) What the HELL are you doing in the
roguelike newsgroup, anyway?
I am really, really sick of people bashing on D20, and spouting out
stupid flawed arguments against it. Yes, D20 has its flaws, but its
detractors never, ever, ever seem to think hard enough to find them.
Kornel Kisielewcz
I'm a p&p rpg collector, game-master and mechanic-designer ;). Believe me, I
pay attention to details.
> Saying that a beginning warrior dies with one shot is wrong.
> 10+con-bonus hit points is plenty to survive even a critical hit
> from, say, a longsword.
It was an exagarration. You can't treat completely serious a word with 20+
"-"-signs.
> Your description of the hit point mechanic shows a woeful
> misunderstanding of what hit points represent. More hit points do NOT
> mean that you can take more damage.
You underestimate me, my dear friend. I know that.
More hit points mean that the same
> hit hurts you less. A level 2 fighter takes proportionally half as
> much damage from the same sword wound, not because he is tougher but
> because he is more skilled. He rolls with the hit. He takes it on the
> shoulder instead of the gut, or whatever. Think Cohen the Barbarian,
> rather than Conan the Barbarian.
So why does a 1-st level guy and a 20-th level guy roll on the same table on
falling damage? The 20-th level guy knows how to catfall, he grows
amortization flaps? Be real ;).
> Unrealistic? No system is unrealistic. All that matters is if the game
> creates BELIEVABLE end results, and D20 manages that just fine if you
> don't get screwed up on these misconceptions.
D20 manages to create believable high-heroic-fantasy. I can agree with that.
As long as I liked heroic fantasy, it was fine. But when my preferences
switched to dark/hard fantasy it changed. D20 is unsuited for any of those
(although I admit the settings of Ravenloft and Planescape are cool if used
with another system ;).
> As for mindless dungeon exploration and powerlevelling: 1) They're the
> sign of a lack of imagination. You can play a perfectly enjoyable D20
> game of politics and intrigue.
You can. Untill your 20th level mage starts casting "Know Alignment", and
other truth saying spells. Or your 20th level warrior starts beating the
shit out of the royal army ;). Yeah, you can play a perfectly enjoyable D20
game of politics and intrigue. If you "throw the book out of the window".
> 2) What the HELL are you doing in the
> roguelike newsgroup, anyway?
Designing and writing STORY-BASED roguelikes. Ever played Omega or GearHead?
> I am really, really sick of people bashing on D20, and spouting out
> stupid flawed arguments against it.
> Yes, D20 has its flaws, but its
> detractors never, ever, ever seem to think hard enough to find them.
You know why I started hating D20? It's not because of the system (which
IMHO can only be used for heroic play), it's because of stupid WotC
politics. They are practicaly destoying the RPG market with D20. The same
thing that IBM did with PC's -- open architecture, everyone can use it...
I'm starting to see D20 everywhere, and see the struggle of other popular
systems against that giant... Example -- when I was young, I was playing
StarWars D6 - it was a cool game with simple mechanics. I liked the
mechanics for they were fun to use (Wild Die anyone?). Now I bought the D20
version, and brought a few friends for a remembrance game. It was horrible.
D6 got KILLED by D20. Sad but true. And that's just the tip of an iceberg.
I'm sick of D20...
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Glen Wheeler
"Kornel Kisielewcz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote in message
news:c8mb5d$11j8$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net...
>
> [..]
>
> You can. Untill your 20th level mage starts casting "Know Alignment", and
> other truth saying spells. Or your 20th level warrior starts beating the
> shit out of the royal army ;). Yeah, you can play a perfectly enjoyable
D20
> game of politics and intrigue. If you "throw the book out of the window".
>
>
The D20 Modern campaign I was running...damn all this talk about DnD makes
me want to organise a few meets again...ran on a similar philosophy.
The game managed to be 80% intrigue/mystery and 20% combat/action. The
20% of our game was great under D20. But the other 80% was hampered by the
fact that the PCs were becoming very powerful. In the beginning I started
to construct in-game solutions to the flaws inherent in the game design.
But then I just threw out the book (as you say) and have a whole
different, quite simple, system for political intrigue, murder mystery, etc.
One particular player is quite violent, and does tend to solve things via
violence. Instead of making these kinds of solutions impossible, there are
just huge disadvantages to them.
Like the police raiding their homes while asleep, jailing them, losing all
money and loot due to `bail'.
It can work, and be fun. In the end though the book is just a tool, and
too much faith in it's ability alone to create a fun game will always cause
problems.
I guess my point is that with a little bit of magic marker-ising the
rulebook, you can have your good combat and non-combat all in one game. So
there is an acceptable compromise.
--
Glen
Chipacabra
> You know why I started hating D20? It's not because of the system
> (which IMHO can only be used for heroic play), it's because of stupid
> WotC politics. They are practicaly destoying the RPG market with D20.
The RPG market was dying long before WotC got its fingers in. It was
glutted with countless different systems competing for too few players, and
none of them were surviving. Now that a company can pump out a sourcebook
for the system that everyone is playing, they can actually hope to make
some money on their game.
> anyone?). Now I bought the D20 version, and brought a few friends for
> a remembrance game. It was horrible. D6 got KILLED by D20. Sad but
> true. And that's just the tip of an iceberg. I'm sick of D20...
West End Star Wars was dead long before D20.
ABCGi
Clearly you are in love with d20, how long have you used it? I, like
Kornel, have matured out of it over many years. It has power leveling
and it has plenty of valid flaws. Also your claim above about what hit
points are meant to represent is not entirely accurate IMO, but I
understand the arguement. It's not a bad system, but it's not perfect
either, its quite popular and shows up in RL's. But we are not
*detractors*, we are ex-lovers, the kind that has been "intimate" with
D&D for a long time - our experience can't really be fobbed off.
Now apparently the latest edition fixes a lot of flaws, which is great,
and something we are trying to do in this group. Cast a critical eye on
existing systems in order to improve them. For instance, from what you
say above, the system should be altered to encourage more imaginative
play and less power leveling. To have too much bias for any one system
will not help design.
Read;
http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/RPG/wrong_adnd.php
and you'll realise, at some stage, that at least one or two of these
criticism's is valid. It's also kind of funny for people who have loved D&D.
--
ABCGi *** BEYOND H-WORLD *** http://abcgi.fly.to
http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk/projects/beyond/hworld
Chipacabra
news:40aed35f$0$2303$61ce...@news.syd.swiftdsl.com.au:
> Clearly you are in love with d20, how long have you used it? I, like
> Kornel, have matured out of it over many years. It has power leveling
> and it has plenty of valid flaws. Also your claim above about what hit
> points are meant to represent is not entirely accurate IMO, but I
> understand the arguement. It's not a bad system, but it's not perfect
> either, its quite popular and shows up in RL's. But we are not
> *detractors*, we are ex-lovers, the kind that has been "intimate" with
> D&D for a long time - our experience can't really be fobbed off.
Oy. D20 is NOT AD&D. If you think that it's still the same game, you
haven't played it, or you haven't payed attention.
When talking about D20 _THROW OUT EVERYTHING BEFORE 3.0E_. 1e and 2e were
fundamentally flawed. THEY FIXED THOSE FLAWS.
Yes, I love D20. It is, in my opinion, one of the two best RPG systems on
the market, and the best at what it does. It is the best game for role-
playing when tactical combat is the norm. (Incidentally, my other
favorite system is Over the Edge, the best system for when having to
adapt to unpredictable situations is the norm.)
> Read;
> http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/RPG/wrong_adnd.php
> and you'll realise, at some stage, that at least one or two of these
> criticism's is valid. It's also kind of funny for people who have loved
> > D&D.
Okay, for the sake of argument:
1. Why are multi-classed demi-human magic-users permitted to wear metal
armour but human magic-users are not? Obviously for game balance, but
that's a flaw in the system and not something that could ever be
satisfactorily explained within the context of the game.
-Fixed.
2. Why are demi-humans restricted in level advancement? Again, the real
answer is game balance, but it doesn't make any sense in the campaign
world.
-Fixed.
3. Why can multi-class demi-human magic-users wear armour but single-
class demi-human magic-users can't? Game balance? I don't even think so,
because the rule actually favours the munchkin in that the multi-class
magic-user--with more class abilities--gets a better deal than the
single-class magic-user. And both with the same magic-user level cap.
This just doesn't make sense. Period.
-Fixed.
4. How are other multi-class character abilities justified in contrast to
their single-class restrictions? For example, a multi-class fighter/thief
can perform thieving abilities in better-than-leather armour. A multi-
class cleric/fighter can use All weapons. What of the
cleric/fighter/magic-user "powerhouse"?
-Fixed.
Since hit points represent not only the ability to sustain physical
damage but also the ability to avoid damage, luck, and the grace of the
gods, the Constitution bonus table provides a problem. Fighters get
better bonuses to hit points for their constitution than any other class,
in addition to an already higher hit die. A fighter with an 18 Con is
lucker and more agile than a thief with 18 Con, and has better divine
favor than a cleric with 18 Con.
-Fixed.
And this only applies to a save against a fireball spell. Yet that "Save
vs. spell" category seems to encompass much more, including (for example)
mental willpower. Why should mental willpower and dodging ability be
measured on the same statistic?
-Fixed.
Although it is accepted that some of the hit points represent dodging or
luck, a character is required to save against the effect of poison or
suffer level draining whenever a monster with poison or drain capability
lowers the character's hit points!
-Completely wrong. All hit point loss is damage. Higher hit point totals
just reduce the proportion of damage done.
In at least one game I played, it was ruled that you recieved
experience points equal to the GP value of any treasure you obtained -
but that the GP value was only established when you sold the item (since,
after all, the value is nothing more than what you got on the market).
This meant that a more charismatic seller would lead to a higher value -
and therefore meant you learnt more in the process of acquiring the
treasure.
-Doesn't exist in D20.
"Hitpoints in AD&D~SDC in palladium" Palladium's "hit points" actually
represent physical damage to the character, and when you take HP damage
you roll to see what the actual effect of the damage is. SDC represents
the "flesh wounds" of highly heroic genres, without doing the abstract
"luck/grace of the gods/fighting ability/etc." that AD&D's HP do. AD&D HP
are completely useless for determining the actual effect of a wound.
Palladium also has critical hits, after-effects of damage, and being
knocked into a coma is life-threatening even if you recover.
-In D20, all wounds are flesh wounds until you go to 0 hp or below. In
Palladium, all wounds are flesh wounds until you go to 0 SDC or below.
The only difference is that the Palladium guy stays standing and
fighting.
Palladium has skills, and has had for 20 years, in which you continue to
improve your old skills throughout your life and slowly learn new ones.
AD&D has a badly-tacked-on "non-weapon" proficiency system, ~10 years
old, that depends far too much on the stat, and makes skill improvement a
waste of NWP slots (+5% to one skill every 3-4 levels is just
ridiculous).
-D20 has a consistent ruleset for skills now.
Palladium does have "occupational character classes" (OCCs), but they
don't restrict skills greatly, and it's trivial to change OCCs in mid-
game if you want to change your professional focus. Go ahead, try
teaching your AD&D Fighter character how to move silently (guess they
never heard of human special forces in AD&D-land).
-Fighters can learn to move silent if they want.
Ah, so now here's YET ANOTHER house-rule mechanism someone derived from
the AD&D lack-of-mechanics. This is why task systems are defined in good
games - so there's a standard resolution. AD&D doesn't have one, and
doesn't use the closest thing to one it has (attribute rolls)...
-D20 IS a task system.
Q: Planescape was built around alignments and is really cool. What's the
problem?
A: The problem is that Planescape was built around the game mechanism,
not the other way around. EVERYBODY *has* to have alignments in their
gaming universes when playing AD&D. Alignments weren't added as a
setting-specific game mechanism because it made for a cool gaming
universe. Alignments were there for no good reason and somebody came up
with a setting that used them. There's a big difference between these.
-Ugh. Pick a personality FIRST, then decide what alignment fits that best
so that you know if you can wield that holy artifact or not.
Q: Alignment penalties aren't game setting penalties. They're
representations of the nervous breakdowns and traumas of having done
something against one's nature. What's wrong with this?
- There're no alignment penalties in 3E. If you act differently than your
alignment says, then you obviously just wrote the wrong thing in that
box, erase it and fix it.
Worse, AD&D's combat is BORING. Roll to hit, roll damage, mark off a few
more hit points, repeat. You have nothing but some numbers that could
represent any combination of combat factors, and you have no way to
decide which they are. AD&D is just a terrible simulation of heroic
fantasy combat.
-Fixed. In 3E, everyone has a tactical decision to make every turn.
Position is important. Fighters have special abilites they can choose
from.
There isn't a single thing on that page that is still valid for D20. It's
like the designers, gasp, ALREADY KNEW THOSE PROBLEMS and went out of
their way to fix them.
Elethiomel
In my opinion, you're wrong. The -basic- flaws are still there. Sure,
they fixed a lot of implementation flaws, which you pointed out, but
these are still true:
- Class based system. Sure, a fighter can learn how to move silently.
He will never be good at it though, because he will always be WAY behind
any rogue who takes that skill. If the classes didn't exist you could
make a character who's good at, for example, sword fighting and sneaking.
- Level based system with hit points. Gee, hit points represent other
things than just damage? I didn't know that! Oh wait, I did. It's still
a stupid mechanism. It makes it so that there is NO WAY a low-level
character can be a threat to a high-level one in combat. If you follow
the rules in the books, a city guard(WAR3) threatening you(FTR7) with a
loaded crossbow is laughable, because there is no way that crossbow bolt
will damage you to any significant degree.
Besides, if hit points are such a catch-all mechanism, why is there
damage reduction in the game? Why is there even armor class?
- Level cap on skills. You cannot have a knowledgeable NPC (i.e. one
with many ranks in some knowledge() skill) without that NPC being
high-level. Which means that the NPC will also have many hit points,
good saving throws, relatively good attack bonus, and a load of
cash/expensive equipment. (this is actually a NEW flaw in d20)
Sure, d20 does tactical combat very well. It is relatively easy for a GM
to balance. (yeah, I know, the d20 term is "DM" I use GM consistently
throughout all the systems I play/GM in, though) It is cool for the
players to gain a new level and all the frills that come with it.
Character customisation is good in some ways (a fighter can be good at
fighting in many different ways) but sucks in some other ways (a fighter
can never be good at sneaking. A bard can never be good at, well,
anything. Except singing). It does not do other aspects of roleplaying
very well.
Three levels after a creature is a difficult boss-fight, the same
creature is easily dispatched in a couple of rounds of combat. Sure, it
makes players feel like their advancement really matters, but for me, it
kills suspension of disbelief.
There's a downside to the easy balancing, too. It encourages
powergaming. If what the PCs encounter (in combat) is determined by
their level, they want to be as good as possible -for their level-, so
encounters in general will be easier for them. In a system where the GM
is forced to consider the actual abilities of the PCs, rather than just
look at their Effective Character level, and say "ah, they're level 6.
That means the red dragon they'll meet at the end of my adventure should
be 'young' (Challenge Rating 7)", the players will set their minds
against the challenges they meet rather than trying to "beat the system".
All in all, I think d20 is a perfect system for roguelikes. It allows
continuing character customisation, it allows tactical combat, and
combat in the system tends to be fun. It's also relatively easy to
balance, as I said.
All this is, of course, my own opinion. I generally think my opinions
are the right ones, though. If not, I'd change them. ;)
ABCGi
> ABCGi wrote in
[snip all fixed]
>
> There isn't a single thing on that page that is still valid for D20. It's
> like the designers, gasp, ALREADY KNEW THOSE PROBLEMS and went out of
> their way to fix them.
Hey nice post (I'll save that one), good that you read through all that. I hope
you enjoyed the reminisce. Someone else here was claiming D20 was "fixed" too,
so there must be something in it. Perhaps we can apply similar fixes to any D&D
based RL design, such as hit point inflation.
However it was you who asked for our views on whether basing a game on d20 was a
good idea, I think it's pretty clear you think it is = decision made I'd say
(and a good idea since you know it well and are keen on it). Feedback = avoid
hit point inflation and power leveling AMAP, which stands as generally good
design advice irregardless of the state of D20 rules IMO.
--
ABCGi ab...@yahoo.com http://abcgi.fly.to S14 D15 I17 W12 C9
Gerry Quinn
>This is the same company that once attempted to claim copyright on a
>Fireball damage table through public announcements. I'm not sure on the
>results, but it did make people a bit unconfortable that basic facts were
>copyrighted.
Facts? About fireball damage?
- Gerry Quinn
ABCGi
Correction it wasn't you, so that last paragraph goes out to crichmon -
if he is reading these after posting the original question... Sorry
chipacabra (my ISP has been screwing up posts lately).
Raymond Martineau
wrote:
Withdrawn. The source of information that I was using is an Internet forum
with Anonymous posting cabilities, and it doesn't seem to go back that far
in time. Either that, or I was using the wrong search term.
Searching for "TSR" instead of "WoTC" will bring up the occassional
complaint, but rely on the fact that you can trust the source.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=3159796&sid=29403
WotC eventually bought out TSR, meaning that some of the reputation rubbed
off on them. At mentioned in the last paragraph of this posting, a lot of
effort was spent trying to repair damage to the TSR trademark (as well as
paying off creditors.) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11304&cid=339204
Mad Fly Thug
> He will never be good at it though, because he will always be WAY behind
> any rogue who takes that skill. If the classes didn't exist you could
> make a character who's good at, for example, sword fighting and sneaking.
If you dont like the classes then make your own, thats what GM's are
for the rules are not set in stone you can create your own settings to
play.
> - Level based system with hit points. Gee, hit points represent other
> things than just damage? I didn't know that! Oh wait, I did. It's still
> a stupid mechanism. It makes it so that there is NO WAY a low-level
> character can be a threat to a high-level one in combat. If you follow
> the rules in the books, a city guard(WAR3) threatening you(FTR7) with a
> loaded crossbow is laughable, because there is no way that crossbow bolt
> will damage you to any significant degree.
> Besides, if hit points are such a catch-all mechanism, why is there
> damage reduction in the game? Why is there even armor class?
Again thats what GM's are for. If a crossbow is fired against your
head you instantly die, same if your throat is cut while sleeping. The
GM can determine if any blow is fatal without having to roll dice.
> - Level cap on skills. You cannot have a knowledgeable NPC (i.e. one
> with many ranks in some knowledge() skill) without that NPC being
> high-level. Which means that the NPC will also have many hit points,
> good saving throws, relatively good attack bonus, and a load of
> cash/expensive equipment. (this is actually a NEW flaw in d20)
NPC's are not subject to character generation rules. GM can create any
character. There is a reason you have a human GM instead of just
playing it solo from a book
> Sure, d20 does tactical combat very well. It is relatively easy for a GM
> to balance. (yeah, I know, the d20 term is "DM" I use GM consistently
> throughout all the systems I play/GM in, though) It is cool for the
> players to gain a new level and all the frills that come with it.
> Character customisation is good in some ways (a fighter can be good at
> fighting in many different ways) but sucks in some other ways (a fighter
> can never be good at sneaking. A bard can never be good at, well,
> anything. Except singing). It does not do other aspects of roleplaying
> very well.
>
> Three levels after a creature is a difficult boss-fight, the same
> creature is easily dispatched in a couple of rounds of combat. Sure, it
> makes players feel like their advancement really matters, but for me, it
> kills suspension of disbelief.
3 levels is alot of play time.
>
> There's a downside to the easy balancing, too. It encourages
> powergaming. If what the PCs encounter (in combat) is determined by
> their level, they want to be as good as possible -for their level-, so
> encounters in general will be easier for them. In a system where the GM
> is forced to consider the actual abilities of the PCs, rather than just
> look at their Effective Character level, and say "ah, they're level 6.
> That means the red dragon they'll meet at the end of my adventure should
> be 'young' (Challenge Rating 7)", the players will set their minds
> against the challenges they meet rather than trying to "beat the
>
Elethiomel
>> - Class based system. Sure, a fighter can learn how to move silently.
>>He will never be good at it though, because he will always be WAY behind
>>any rogue who takes that skill. If the classes didn't exist you could
>>make a character who's good at, for example, sword fighting and sneaking.
>
>
> If you dont like the classes then make your own, thats what GM's are
> for the rules are not set in stone you can create your own settings to
> play.
Maybe. Still, if the character creation system is flexible in and of
itself, the GM doesn't have to make a custom class for every player who
wants to play a character concept that isn't covered by the existing
classes.
>> - Level based system with hit points. Gee, hit points represent other
>>things than just damage? I didn't know that! Oh wait, I did. It's still
>>a stupid mechanism. It makes it so that there is NO WAY a low-level
>>character can be a threat to a high-level one in combat. If you follow
>>the rules in the books, a city guard(WAR3) threatening you(FTR7) with a
>>loaded crossbow is laughable, because there is no way that crossbow bolt
>>will damage you to any significant degree.
>>Besides, if hit points are such a catch-all mechanism, why is there
>>damage reduction in the game? Why is there even armor class?
>
>
> Again thats what GM's are for. If a crossbow is fired against your
> head you instantly die, same if your throat is cut while sleeping. The
> GM can determine if any blow is fatal without having to roll dice.
There are already rules in place for cutting of throats while asleep.
Anyway, the "threatening crossbow" thing was just an example of why I
think the hit-point-per-level thing isn't good for roleplaying. If you
need to create a lot of exceptions for a rule, I think the rule itself
should be rethought.
>> - Level cap on skills. You cannot have a knowledgeable NPC (i.e. one
>>with many ranks in some knowledge() skill) without that NPC being
>>high-level. Which means that the NPC will also have many hit points,
>>good saving throws, relatively good attack bonus, and a load of
>>cash/expensive equipment. (this is actually a NEW flaw in d20)
>
>
> NPC's are not subject to character generation rules. GM can create any
> character. There is a reason you have a human GM instead of just
> playing it solo from a book
Again, the NPC was an example. In a different system, I might be able to
create a very focused PC who's very very good at one thing and one thing
only. Like knowing things about extraplanar beings. Sure, this could be
used by players to min/max a super combat character, but *that* (IMO) is
where the GM is supposed to come in. To find out what kind of campaign
the players want, or alternately to finesse them into playing different
characters than they're used to so they find out how cool it is to have
their character put in a morally ambiguous situation and have to
roleplay it out instead of fight it out, for instance. The GM shouldn't
have to fight the system to let the players have fun.
(snip some of my earlier post)
>>Three levels after a creature is a difficult boss-fight, the same
>>creature is easily dispatched in a couple of rounds of combat. Sure, it
>>makes players feel like their advancement really matters, but for me, it
>>kills suspension of disbelief.
>
>
> 3 levels is alot of play time.
That depends on the players and the GM. If the players do what I talked
about below, powergame so they're "better than their level", 3 levels
could go fast because such a group will earn XP (again, if you follow
the rules in the book) at a relatively high rate.
>>There's a downside to the easy balancing, too. It encourages
>>powergaming. If what the PCs encounter (in combat) is determined by
>>their level, they want to be as good as possible -for their level-, so
>>encounters in general will be easier for them. In a system where the GM
>>is forced to consider the actual abilities of the PCs, rather than just
>>look at their Effective Character level, and say "ah, they're level 6.
>>That means the red dragon they'll meet at the end of my adventure should
>>be 'young' (Challenge Rating 7)", the players will set their minds
>>against the challenges they meet rather than trying to "beat the
To sum this up, then, and to clarify my earlier post, I was talking
about how the d20 system is out-of-the-box. Sure, a good GM will be able
to compensate for its flaws, but a good system shouldn't give a GM that
much work (much work = balanced custom classes, for instance).
Ray Dillinger
> -Fixed.
Well, no, really it's not.
The fundamental flaw of D&D, AD&D, D&D2e, D&D3e, D20, and in
my opinion most roguelike games, is this:
There is too much difference between low-level and high-level
characters. Advancement of "levels" starts off too low when
the characters are barely differentiated from herdsmen, and
tops out way too high when they are barely differentiated from
gods. Character level dominates playing skill and tactics in
all combat.
They didn't fix that.
Bear
Chipacabra
news:40af...@news.broadpark.no:
Of course he'll always be behind the rogue. Fighting is one niche, skills
are one niche, magic is one niche. You can be good at more than one
niche, but you can't be as good as someone that SPECIALIZES in that
niche. Why should you be able to? That would just be munchkin.
Also: Notice that there's no real penalty for multiclassing (in
moderation) anymore.
> - Level based system with hit points. Gee, hit points represent
> other
> things than just damage? I didn't know that! Oh wait, I did. It's
> still a stupid mechanism. It makes it so that there is NO WAY a
> low-level character can be a threat to a high-level one in combat. If
> you follow the rules in the books, a city guard(WAR3) threatening
> you(FTR7) with a loaded crossbow is laughable, because there is no way
> that crossbow bolt will damage you to any significant degree.
> Besides, if hit points are such a catch-all mechanism, why is there
> damage reduction in the game? Why is there even armor class?
AUGH! STOP SAYING STUPID THINGS. Of COURSE a mook with a crossbow isn't
going to be a major threat to a highly trained badass soldier. Mr. Badass
doesn't stand with his vitals in front of the bolt! You are rewarded for
being better. This is cinematic roleplay, people. Do you want John
McClane to have keeled over dead the first time a terrorist shoots him?
No, he takes it in the shoulder and keeps fighting. If you're playing a
combat oriented game and your only character dies at the first hit, even
after you've put countless hours of play into him, then it's just not
fun.
Armor Class is what keeps you from being hit at ALL. Damage avoidance vs.
damage mitigation.
Damage Reduction is for extraordinary toughness that can reduce damage
entirely. Higher levels mean your damage taken is divided by your level,
but you always take SOME damage from a hit.
> - Level cap on skills. You cannot have a knowledgeable NPC (i.e. one
> with many ranks in some knowledge() skill) without that NPC being
> high-level. Which means that the NPC will also have many hit points,
> good saving throws, relatively good attack bonus, and a load of
> cash/expensive equipment. (this is actually a NEW flaw in d20)
A level one human expert can have +13 to his knowledge skill. +4 from
INT, +4 ranks, +3 from skill emphasis, and +2 from one of those two-skill
feats. That is a LOT. As in, you can be expected to know anything about
anything. If you're leveling your NPCs to boost their skills, you don't
understand the system.
> Sure, d20 does tactical combat very well. It is relatively easy for a
> GM to balance. (yeah, I know, the d20 term is "DM" I use GM
> consistently throughout all the systems I play/GM in, though) It is
> cool for the players to gain a new level and all the frills that come
> with it. Character customisation is good in some ways (a fighter can
> be good at fighting in many different ways) but sucks in some other
> ways (a fighter can never be good at sneaking. A bard can never be
> good at, well, anything. Except singing). It does not do other aspects
> of roleplaying very well.
MULTICLASS. It's allowed now. The rules work. The most badass NPC in my
campaign currently is a fighter/bard.
> There's a downside to the easy balancing, too. It encourages
> powergaming.
You were just trying to make a character that's good at swordfighting AND
sneaking AND singing AND dressing AND macrame AND tantra, and you're
accusing D20 of powergaming? There are suboptimal choices, but there is
actually LESS possible powergaming than, say, GURPS. (I had a 75 point
character in GURPS exploding 125-150 point NPCs with a shovel because I
had worked the system to point out its flaws.)
> If what the PCs encounter (in combat) is determined by
> their level, they want to be as good as possible -for their level-, so
> encounters in general will be easier for them. In a system where the
> GM is forced to consider the actual abilities of the PCs, rather than
> just look at their Effective Character level, and say "ah, they're
> level 6. That means the red dragon they'll meet at the end of my
> adventure should be 'young' (Challenge Rating 7)", the players will
> set their minds against the challenges they meet rather than trying to
> "beat the system".
There's a huge range in capabilities across all the CR7 things. Some of
them will be a cakewalk for a particular 7th level party. Some will be
devestating. The DM still has to pay attention.
As an asided, the CR system has made one major huge leap above old AD&D:
Adding levels to enemies. It's easy and consistent to do, and it means
that the players can never take kobolds for granted again. If you miss
the weak monsters, you just make a batch of them with extra levels or hit
dice, and you are given the tools to do it right there in the books.
Chipacabra
@typhoon.sonic.net:
Why is this bad? Why is it bad that the character you have put hundreds
of hours of play time into is more or less immune to a jackass mook on an
even playing field? Why is it bad that the game does not artificially say
you can not play at a level no higher than herdsmen, or at a level higher
than gods?
Here's a hint: If you don't like high level play, you can stop and start
over at that point. If you don't like low level play, you can start at
higher levels.
Look, if you give a sword to random overweight computer geek, and put him
up against Musashi Miyamoto, he will lose every time. So how does
computer geek win? He sneaks up on Musashi while he's asleep and cuts his
throat. And, gasp, there's rules for that in 3e! (Although being a high
level badass means that there's a good chance you'll wake up before he's
killed you, but part of the reason you've lived so long is that you're
too cunning to die in your sleep.)
See, if you say things like 'A level 1 warrior can shoot a level 20
fighter in the head, and he'll survive,' then you don't understand the
system! So long as you have hit points remaining, then YOU DIDN'T GET
SHOT IN THE HEAD. Until your hit points fall to 0, EVERY wound you take
is non-lifethreatening, because you have the skill, training, and combat
awareness to keep your vitals out of the way of the pointy bits.
And if you think this is unrealistic, you should look up how ancient
Chinese warfare worked.
Ray Dillinger
> Ray Dillinger <be...@sonic.net> wrote in news:cxNrc.12547$Fo4.171849
> @typhoon.sonic.net:
>
>
>>Chipacabra wrote:
>>
>>>-Fixed.
>>
>>Well, no, really it's not.
>>
>>The fundamental flaw of D&D, AD&D, D&D2e, D&D3e, D20, and in
>>my opinion most roguelike games, is this:
>>
>>There is too much difference between low-level and high-level
>>characters. Advancement of "levels" starts off too low when
>>the characters are barely differentiated from herdsmen, and
>>tops out way too high when they are barely differentiated from
>>gods. Character level dominates playing skill and tactics in
>>all combat.
>
>
> Why is this bad? Why is it bad that the character you have put hundreds
> of hours of play time into is more or less immune to a jackass mook on an
> even playing field? Why is it bad that the game does not artificially say
> you can not play at a level no higher than herdsmen, or at a level higher
> than gods?
It is bad because once you are immune to a jackass mook on an
even playing field, there is no interest or joy remaining in
the challenge that jackass mook does not present.
It is bad because the leveling rules invite you to think (as I
see that you do) in terms of doing stuff for its effect on
levelling your character, rather than in terms of doing stuff
for reasons your character might actually care about. That
makes story development and character motivation secondary in
every case to powergaming.
> Here's a hint: If you don't like high level play, you can stop and start
> over at that point. If you don't like low level play, you can start at
> higher levels.
Here's another hint; if you play D&D3e, try starting with fourth-
level characters and having a campaign where you take one-tenth
experience. Screw the rules, in this case; with slower experience,
you get to do more stuff before you "level" past the point where it
would be interesting, it's more fun while you're doing it, and you
get to think in terms of what your character would want or try
instead of how to get to the next level fastest. Long campaigns
become strategic struggles where dramatically changing your own
capabilities isn't the only fundamental plank of the game plan.
It's way more fun for a regular game than the way they recommend
playing.
Bear
Elethiomel
>>He will never be good at it though, because he will always be WAY
>>behind any rogue who takes that skill. If the classes didn't exist you
>>could make a character who's good at, for example, sword fighting and
>>sneaking.
>
>
> Of course he'll always be behind the rogue. Fighting is one niche, skills
> are one niche, magic is one niche. You can be good at more than one
> niche, but you can't be as good as someone that SPECIALIZES in that
> niche. Why should you be able to? That would just be munchkin.
> Also: Notice that there's no real penalty for multiclassing (in
> moderation) anymore.
Fighting should be a skill. The fighter has more than skill at swords;
he knows how to use armour, he gets extra feats, etc. etc. If my
character concept doesn't use armour, but needs to be very good at sword
use (read: high BAB in d20), why shouldn't I (using a balanced system)
be able to exchange the typical fighter's armour wearing capabilities
with stealth skills?
>
>> - Level based system with hit points. Gee, hit points represent
>> other
>>things than just damage? I didn't know that! Oh wait, I did. It's
>>still a stupid mechanism. It makes it so that there is NO WAY a
>>low-level character can be a threat to a high-level one in combat. If
>>you follow the rules in the books, a city guard(WAR3) threatening
>>you(FTR7) with a loaded crossbow is laughable, because there is no way
>>that crossbow bolt will damage you to any significant degree.
>>Besides, if hit points are such a catch-all mechanism, why is there
>>damage reduction in the game? Why is there even armor class?
>
>
> AUGH! STOP SAYING STUPID THINGS. Of COURSE a mook with a crossbow isn't
> going to be a major threat to a highly trained badass soldier. Mr. Badass
> doesn't stand with his vitals in front of the bolt! You are rewarded for
> being better. This is cinematic roleplay, people. Do you want John
> McClane to have keeled over dead the first time a terrorist shoots him?
> No, he takes it in the shoulder and keeps fighting. If you're playing a
> combat oriented game and your only character dies at the first hit, even
> after you've put countless hours of play into him, then it's just not
> fun.
> Armor Class is what keeps you from being hit at ALL. Damage avoidance vs.
> damage mitigation.
> Damage Reduction is for extraordinary toughness that can reduce damage
> entirely. Higher levels mean your damage taken is divided by your level,
> but you always take SOME damage from a hit.
Then at least admit that the system actually sucks at other sorts of
campaigns, rather than saying that it's generally good but excels where
tactical combat is the norm. Wait, that's *cinematic* tactical combat.
Not moderately realistic tactical combat. Sorry. Warhammer FRP handles
combat more realistically, for instance, and combat is rather deadly,
but with intelligent play it's still possible to have your character
survive for a long time. Part of intelligent play is not to try
something stupid when a guard has the drop on you with his crossbow.
I'm only saying "stupid things" to point out what I'm talking about. I
exaggerate, sure. That's something of the point.
> A level one human expert can have +13 to his knowledge skill. +4 from
> INT, +4 ranks, +3 from skill emphasis, and +2 from one of those two-skill
> feats. That is a LOT. As in, you can be expected to know anything about
> anything. If you're leveling your NPCs to boost their skills, you don't
> understand the system.
Then you haven't looked at some of the DCs for knowing stuff in DnD.
Knowledge skills are no-retry, so you can't take 20. How's that level 1
expert going to know obscure facts about how to kill Lolth on her native
plane?
Oh, and according to the rules, that expert uses the "non-elite" stat
array, which means 15 in his primary stat. No +4 from int, I'm afraid.
>
>>Sure, d20 does tactical combat very well. It is relatively easy for a
>>GM to balance. (yeah, I know, the d20 term is "DM" I use GM
>>consistently throughout all the systems I play/GM in, though) It is
>>cool for the players to gain a new level and all the frills that come
>>with it. Character customisation is good in some ways (a fighter can
>>be good at fighting in many different ways) but sucks in some other
>>ways (a fighter can never be good at sneaking. A bard can never be
>>good at, well, anything. Except singing). It does not do other aspects
>>of roleplaying very well.
>
>
> MULTICLASS. It's allowed now. The rules work. The most badass NPC in my
> campaign currently is a fighter/bard.
I know multiclass works. It doesn't cover as many character archetypes
as a skill-based system does, though. See my unarmored fighter above.
>
>>There's a downside to the easy balancing, too. It encourages
>>powergaming.
>
>
> You were just trying to make a character that's good at swordfighting AND
> sneaking AND singing AND dressing AND macrame AND tantra, and you're
> accusing D20 of powergaming? There are suboptimal choices, but there is
> actually LESS possible powergaming than, say, GURPS. (I had a 75 point
> character in GURPS exploding 125-150 point NPCs with a shovel because I
> had worked the system to point out its flaws.)
Oh, please stuff some more straw into your little construct, there. I
said swordfighting and sneaking. That means the character would not be
able to focus on, say, shield use, armour, other "thief" skills, etc.
etc. Why are you taking everything I say the worst way possible?
>
>>If what the PCs encounter (in combat) is determined by
>>their level, they want to be as good as possible -for their level-, so
>>encounters in general will be easier for them. In a system where the
>>GM is forced to consider the actual abilities of the PCs, rather than
>>just look at their Effective Character level, and say "ah, they're
>>level 6. That means the red dragon they'll meet at the end of my
>>adventure should be 'young' (Challenge Rating 7)", the players will
>>set their minds against the challenges they meet rather than trying to
>>"beat the system".
>
>
> There's a huge range in capabilities across all the CR7 things. Some of
> them will be a cakewalk for a particular 7th level party. Some will be
> devestating. The DM still has to pay attention.
> As an asided, the CR system has made one major huge leap above old AD&D:
> Adding levels to enemies. It's easy and consistent to do, and it means
> that the players can never take kobolds for granted again. If you miss
> the weak monsters, you just make a batch of them with extra levels or hit
> dice, and you are given the tools to do it right there in the books.
Granted. Adding levels to monsters generally works well. And granted,
the GM should consider if the party has the means to counter that
specific threat. Again, I exaggerated for effect. It was an example to
illustrate why players are encouraged by the system to beat the system.
Chipacabra
> It is bad because the leveling rules invite you to think (as I
> see that you do) in terms of doing stuff for its effect on
> levelling your character, rather than in terms of doing stuff
> for reasons your character might actually care about. That
> makes story development and character motivation secondary in
> every case to powergaming.
The leveling rules state plainly that activities that do not further the
plot do not get you experience. You can get full experience awards
without killing a single monster.
> Here's another hint; if you play D&D3e, try starting with fourth-
> level characters and having a campaign where you take one-tenth
> experience. Screw the rules, in this case; with slower experience,
> you get to do more stuff before you "level" past the point where it
> would be interesting, it's more fun while you're doing it, and you
> get to think in terms of what your character would want or try
> instead of how to get to the next level fastest. Long campaigns
> become strategic struggles where dramatically changing your own
> capabilities isn't the only fundamental plank of the game plan.
Feel free. It's your game. Notice how easily that D20 accepts such a
change if that's what you want.
This distinction is just personal preference, anyway, and has nothing to
do with whether a system 'sucks.'
Chipacabra
> Chipacabra wrote:
>>>He will never be good at it though, because he will always be WAY
>>>behind any rogue who takes that skill. If the classes didn't exist
>>>you could make a character who's good at, for example, sword fighting
>>>and sneaking.
>>
>>
>> Of course he'll always be behind the rogue. Fighting is one niche,
>> skills are one niche, magic is one niche. You can be good at more
>> than one niche, but you can't be as good as someone that SPECIALIZES
>> in that niche. Why should you be able to? That would just be
>> munchkin. Also: Notice that there's no real penalty for multiclassing
>> (in moderation) anymore.
>
> Fighting should be a skill. The fighter has more than skill at swords;
> he knows how to use armour, he gets extra feats, etc. etc. If my
> character concept doesn't use armour, but needs to be very good at
> sword use (read: high BAB in d20), why shouldn't I (using a balanced
> system) be able to exchange the typical fighter's armour wearing
> capabilities with stealth skills?
The way armor works in d20, losing the ability to wear heavy armor isn't
worth, well, anything. If you lost heavy armor to get stealth, you'd just
bump up your dex (which you need for stealth anyway) to the point that
you're getting the same AC AND better reflex saves AND stealth skills.
You would be gaining skills without actually taking any game penalty.
Munchkin.
> Then at least admit that the system actually sucks at other sorts of
> campaigns, rather than saying that it's generally good but excels
> where tactical combat is the norm. Wait, that's *cinematic* tactical
> combat. Not moderately realistic tactical combat. Sorry. Warhammer FRP
> handles combat more realistically, for instance, and combat is rather
> deadly, but with intelligent play it's still possible to have your
> character survive for a long time. Part of intelligent play is not to
> try something stupid when a guard has the drop on you with his
> crossbow.
Did you see where I said that my other favorite system is Over the Edge?
Incidentally, I've played WFRP, and it's just more deadly, not more
realistic.
In China, warfare used to be conducted by one highly skilled warrior
leading a mass of mooks. The leader would wade into the enemy's mass of
mooks, and cut a breach for his men to pour into. Generally, the only
threat to this warrior was his counterpart leading the other unit. He was
simply so much more skilled than the conscripts that even en masse they
were no real threat to him unless they got lucky.
If you model that same battle in d20 you will (after an admittedly
obnoxious amount of dice rolling, one of the weaknesses of d20 is that it
does not do large scale well) get similar results. If you model the
battle in WFRP, Zhang Fei will get stabbed in the groin five steps in and
die.
>> A level one human expert can have +13 to his knowledge skill. +4 from
>> INT, +4 ranks, +3 from skill emphasis, and +2 from one of those
>> two-skill feats. That is a LOT. As in, you can be expected to know
>> anything about anything. If you're leveling your NPCs to boost their
>> skills, you don't understand the system.
>
> Then you haven't looked at some of the DCs for knowing stuff in DnD.
> Knowledge skills are no-retry, so you can't take 20. How's that level
> 1 expert going to know obscure facts about how to kill Lolth on her
> native plane?
How is ANYONE going to know how to kill Lolth on her native plane without
going out and doing some adventuring to find out? That's the sort of
thing you ask retired heroes, not village elders.
If you need to know from a level 1 homebody, though, you go ask a
librarian. All he needs is a DC 10 or so check to know which book it's
written in.
> Oh, and according to the rules, that expert uses the "non-elite" stat
> array, which means 15 in his primary stat. No +4 from int, I'm afraid.
You're the DM. You can use whatever stats you want. Make him all 18s, for
crappsake. The non-elite stat array is for AVERAGE NPCs, and the average
NPC ISN'T going to know the cool stuff.
>> MULTICLASS. It's allowed now. The rules work. The most badass NPC in
>> my campaign currently is a fighter/bard.
>
> I know multiclass works. It doesn't cover as many character archetypes
> as a skill-based system does, though. See my unarmored fighter above.
Unarmored fighter is already so good that adding stealth to it would be
imbalanced.
You can also take ranger, which IS an unarmored stealthy fighter, and
just describe the spellcasting as limited special abilities. But the
ranger is another of the known fudges in D20: it's a class chosen for
legacy reasons rather than universalness. It's not a flaw in the D20
system, though, since other D20 games have much more rational classes to
choose from. I particularly like D20 Modern's classes, which are divorced
entirely from job description.
> Oh, please stuff some more straw into your little construct, there. I
> said swordfighting and sneaking. That means the character would not be
> able to focus on, say, shield use, armour, other "thief" skills, etc.
> etc. Why are you taking everything I say the worst way possible?
Because that's where your train of thought leads, trust me. You're
wanting to drop the things that you won't miss to get new abilities.
That's powergaming. That's munchkin. D20 OPPOSES munckinism. The class
system protects the niches and keeps one character from being really good
at a lot of things, and only bad at things that will never come up.
My last word: I don't give a rat's ass about converting people who don't
like D20. My only reason for speaking up is that I'm sick and tired of
people ranting and bitching about it, and spitting out stuff in public
that _isn't even true_ where the newbies will see it. People are going to
see these rants and form a preconception of D20 that isn't even based on
reality. Then they'll turn to GURPS or something, and that's just tragic.
Ray Dillinger
> The leveling rules state plainly that activities that do not further the
> plot do not get you experience. You can get full experience awards
> without killing a single monster.
>
Remember that you were advocating the mechanics of this system
for roguelike games. It is hard to write a computer program
that knows whether an action advances the plot or character
development.
>>Here's another hint; if you play D&D3e, try starting with fourth-
>>level characters and having a campaign where you take one-tenth
>>experience.
> Feel free. It's your game. Notice how easily that D20 accepts such a
> change if that's what you want.
>
Laugh :-) "House rules D&D," by the time I got through fixing
all the stuff *I* thought sucked about D20, would bear no
relation to the D20 system, nor in fact preserve *any*
of the mechanics or even basic statistics promulgated by
TSR/WoTC. Sorry, but I've played a dozen systems, and
D20 isn't even in the running for anything close to the
top slot.
What I was suggesting was what I think is a minimal possible
change that, if you actually tried it, would allow you to see
that powerlevelling, as done in D&D, actually detracts from
the game. This is not (not even close) to all that I think
you'd need to do to fix the basic suckage of its mechanics.
It is merely a first step on a journey to a much different
place.
I don't think I've seen any evidence in this thread that you've
actually spent any significant amount of time playing anything
else.
Even if I grant that D20 is an excellent P&P roleplaying
game (which I do not grant), it's irrelevant to roguelikes
because roguelikes have different constraints to work with.
P&P roleplaying systems need to be very simple in terms
of combat resolution in order to be playable; a linear
probability modified by a few constants is all the math
that most human players want to do in real time. But we're
making computer games, and we can code whatever we want
without burdening the player with keeping track of it all.
I think a sigmoid or bell curve with logarithmic modifiers
generally gives a better result, allowing for more varied
characters and more realistic combat, where the modifiers
matter without becoming overwhelming in combination. I
can implement it without bothering the players to do math
every turn; why should I do something simplistic like D20
combat instead? Indeed, why should any computer game
designer?
Bear
Chipacabra
>
> I don't think I've seen any evidence in this thread that you've
> actually spent any significant amount of time playing anything
> else.
GURPS, Palladium (RIFTS, Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas and Superspies, and
Fantasy), WFRP, Over The Edge, Paranoia(1, 2, and 5), Basic D&D, AD&D,
World Tree, Ars Magica, D20 (Modern, D&D3, Star Wars, and Wheel of Time),
Top Secret SI, Deadlands, Darksword Adventures, Earthdawn, White Wolf
(Vampire, Changling, and even Street Fighter 2), countless homebrew, and
I'm probably forgetting a few. Any guesses which ones I consider good and
which ones I consider bad? There's several in each category.
Manny Swedberg
>
> West End Star Wars was dead long before D20.
Anybody remember West End Ghostbusters? THAT was a fun game. I think
it was the same mechanic as Star Wars (SW used the d6's, right?) but a
lot more zany. I didn't get to play it more than a dozen times or so,
but just sitting down and reading the rulebook was a blast, back in
the day. Hope my mom never threw it away.
Elethiomel
>>Fighting should be a skill. The fighter has more than skill at swords;
>>he knows how to use armour, he gets extra feats, etc. etc. If my
>>character concept doesn't use armour, but needs to be very good at
>>sword use (read: high BAB in d20), why shouldn't I (using a balanced
>>system) be able to exchange the typical fighter's armour wearing
>>capabilities with stealth skills?
>
>
> The way armor works in d20, losing the ability to wear heavy armor isn't
> worth, well, anything. If you lost heavy armor to get stealth, you'd just
> bump up your dex (which you need for stealth anyway) to the point that
> you're getting the same AC AND better reflex saves AND stealth skills.
> You would be gaining skills without actually taking any game penalty.
> Munchkin.
Actually, I wasn't even thinking of that bit. And I would certainly miss
things that would otherwise come up, like sneak attack damage. And it
shows another unrealistic aspect of DnD; you can be as hard to hit
without armour as you can with it. That's just ... wrong (or rather,
it's sort of right, but blows tend to glance off or be stopped by armor
more often than an agile person should be able to dodge those same
blows. In reality).
> In China, warfare used to be conducted by one highly skilled warrior
> leading a mass of mooks. The leader would wade into the enemy's mass of
> mooks, and cut a breach for his men to pour into. Generally, the only
> threat to this warrior was his counterpart leading the other unit. He was
> simply so much more skilled than the conscripts that even en masse they
> were no real threat to him unless they got lucky.
> If you model that same battle in d20 you will (after an admittedly
> obnoxious amount of dice rolling, one of the weaknesses of d20 is that it
> does not do large scale well) get similar results. If you model the
> battle in WFRP, Zhang Fei will get stabbed in the groin five steps in and
> die.
Please answer one more time and give me a link or a book reference to a
source that has been under peer review by historians, showing this to be
true and not an exaggeration. I would very much like to read this
myself. If it is true, then it may change my view on this, but I'm
rather sceptical. (therefore I would like a "verified" source.) Please.
> How is ANYONE going to know how to kill Lolth on her native plane without
> going out and doing some adventuring to find out? That's the sort of
> thing you ask retired heroes, not village elders.
>
> If you need to know from a level 1 homebody, though, you go ask a
> librarian. All he needs is a DC 10 or so check to know which book it's
> written in.
Okay, I admit my exaggeration didn't make much sense this time. So I
shouldn't have taken the "Knowledge" example. My argument here may not
have made much sense. I shall have to think more about this aspect.
>>Oh, and according to the rules, that expert uses the "non-elite" stat
>>array, which means 15 in his primary stat. No +4 from int, I'm afraid.
>
>
> You're the DM. You can use whatever stats you want. Make him all 18s, for
> crappsake. The non-elite stat array is for AVERAGE NPCs, and the average
> NPC ISN'T going to know the cool stuff.
I know. :) I pointed out several times that this was "if you go
specifically by the rules in the book". And a new GM would do that, for
instance.
>>>MULTICLASS. It's allowed now. The rules work. The most badass NPC in
>>>my campaign currently is a fighter/bard.
>>
>>I know multiclass works. It doesn't cover as many character archetypes
>>as a skill-based system does, though. See my unarmored fighter above.
>
>
> Unarmored fighter is already so good that adding stealth to it would be
> imbalanced.
> You can also take ranger, which IS an unarmored stealthy fighter, and
> just describe the spellcasting as limited special abilities. But the
> ranger is another of the known fudges in D20: it's a class chosen for
> legacy reasons rather than universalness. It's not a flaw in the D20
> system, though, since other D20 games have much more rational classes to
> choose from. I particularly like D20 Modern's classes, which are divorced
> entirely from job description.
Addressed unarmored fighter thing above. Yeah, the ranger has some of
the abilities I pointed out above, but he also has a LOT of abilites
that I didn't want for my character concept. Just not use them? That
would make the character unbalanced in the other direction -- too weak.
I aggree that the classes in D20 modern are much better. Much, much
better. If I want to run a game focused on roleplaying in the modern
world, though, where pulling out the guns is *not* a good idea, like in
the real world, and the characters have attained anything beyond level
2-3... I have to fight the system.
>>Oh, please stuff some more straw into your little construct, there. I
>>said swordfighting and sneaking. That means the character would not be
>>able to focus on, say, shield use, armour, other "thief" skills, etc.
>>etc. Why are you taking everything I say the worst way possible?
>
>
> Because that's where your train of thought leads, trust me. You're
> wanting to drop the things that you won't miss to get new abilities.
> That's powergaming. That's munchkin. D20 OPPOSES munckinism. The class
> system protects the niches and keeps one character from being really good
> at a lot of things, and only bad at things that will never come up.
Fighter's bonus feats. Thief's sneak attacks. Ranger's favoured enemy
bonuses, spellcasting, etc. Barbarian's rage and fast movement. "My"
example class of being good at sneaking and swordfighting misses out on
ALL of these things. How is this unbalanced munchkinism?
> My last word: I don't give a rat's ass about converting people who don't
> like D20. My only reason for speaking up is that I'm sick and tired of
> people ranting and bitching about it, and spitting out stuff in public
> that _isn't even true_ where the newbies will see it. People are going to
> see these rants and form a preconception of D20 that isn't even based on
> reality. Then they'll turn to GURPS or something, and that's just tragic.
I'm sorry to hear that, as you are making sense in your arguments. And I
do see how hit points make sense in a tactical-style RPG. What I think
is the really sad part (as can be seen by my posting about the many weak
points of d20 while still saying DnD is fun) is that it doesn't
translate well into genres that aren't supposed have "cinematic" combat
- and WoTC is steadily gobbling up all other minor systems out there,
converting them to d20, and making the original versions very hard to
get hold of indeed (since they're out of print). Maybe you like d20 for
these genres too, but it's very sad for people who have helped keeping a
game alive to suddenly see it metamorphosed beyond description.
Chipacabra
news:40b0...@news.broadpark.no:
> Chipacabra wrote:
>> In China, warfare used to be conducted by one highly skilled warrior
>> leading a mass of mooks. The leader would wade into the enemy's mass
>> of mooks, and cut a breach for his men to pour into. Generally, the
>> only threat to this warrior was his counterpart leading the other
>> unit. He was simply so much more skilled than the conscripts that
>> even en masse they were no real threat to him unless they got lucky.
>> If you model that same battle in d20 you will (after an admittedly
>> obnoxious amount of dice rolling, one of the weaknesses of d20 is
>> that it does not do large scale well) get similar results. If you
>> model the battle in WFRP, Zhang Fei will get stabbed in the groin
>> five steps in and die.
>
> Please answer one more time and give me a link or a book reference to
> a source that has been under peer review by historians, showing this
> to be true and not an exaggeration. I would very much like to read
> this myself. If it is true, then it may change my view on this, but
> I'm rather sceptical. (therefore I would like a "verified" source.)
> Please.
Try the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. It's been under peer review for
centuries, and archaelogical evidence is supporting it. During the Zhou
era, an aristocrat was expected to set an example for his soldiers by
being brave and strong. This shifted in the Warring States period when
more states shifted to mobilizing and training an army, and leading with
tactical skill.
They're hardly unique in this. Until the development of massed
formations, a knight would recruit a batch of peasantry, they'd get some
makeshift gear, and then tag along mopping up after the damage he did.
It shouldn't be that mind-boggling. Some people train their entire lives
to be deadly in combat. Some people are given a sword and told to try not
to die. The difference is far greater than WFRP or even Rolemaster would
suggest.
Elethiomel
> Try the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. It's been under peer review for
> centuries, and archaelogical evidence is supporting it. During the Zhou
> era, an aristocrat was expected to set an example for his soldiers by
> being brave and strong. This shifted in the Warring States period when
> more states shifted to mobilizing and training an army, and leading with
> tactical skill.
>
> They're hardly unique in this. Until the development of massed
> formations, a knight would recruit a batch of peasantry, they'd get some
> makeshift gear, and then tag along mopping up after the damage he did.
>
> It shouldn't be that mind-boggling. Some people train their entire lives
> to be deadly in combat. Some people are given a sword and told to try not
> to die. The difference is far greater than WFRP or even Rolemaster would
> suggest.
All right, I shall look into it. Thank you.
However, I feel I must point out that a highly developed WFRP character
with dodge blow, a good WS and many attacks (some of which he would
"waste" by parrying other attacks that would otherwise hit) would be
very likely to survive an encounter against a considerable number of
"peasants with swords" -- but the mechanism that makes it possible is
his skills rather than his hit points. That's what I meant by realistic.
Kornel Kisielewicz
> "Kornel Kisielewcz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote in
> news:c8mb5d$11j8$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net:
>
>> You know why I started hating D20? It's not because of the system
>> (which IMHO can only be used for heroic play), it's because of stupid
>> WotC politics. They are practicaly destoying the RPG market with D20.
>
> The RPG market was dying long before WotC got its fingers in. It was
> glutted with countless different systems competing for too few
> players, and none of them were surviving. Now that a company can pump
> out a sourcebook for the system that everyone is playing, they can
> actually hope to make some money on their game.
I'm not going into this dispute, out of lack of time. You will probably
never agree with me, blinded by WotC system. The point of view I presented
here is shared by many people from the publishers/reporters branch of the
RPG industry. If you think you're wiser then them, I won't argue anymore.
Out of my point of view I'd advise you to look at Amber Diceless RPG, or
Wraith the Oblivion, but you will have problems with that, 'cause both of
them left the market because they were to demanding as for the average
player. So you're probably left with the not so bad GURPS system...
Anyway, I hope I didn't offend you. If that is what you feel, I'm sorry, it
weren't ment that way. I'm just sick of people who praise DnD as a great
game, either not knowing what a true RPG session can be like, or not knowing
other systems.
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
> Chipacabra <ch...@efn.org> wrote in message
> news:<Xns94F0D20C27...@216.196.105.134>...
>>
>> West End Star Wars was dead long before D20.
>
> Anybody remember West End Ghostbusters? THAT was a fun game. I think
> it was the same mechanic as Star Wars (SW used the d6's, right?)
Yeah. It was cool ;). WEG made quite a few systems on d6. The mechanics
weren't to realistics, but had a huge fun factor, realy suited to the genres
they took place in. The Wild Die was a masterpiece ;).
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
>> - Class based system. Sure, a fighter can learn how to move
>> silently. He will never be good at it though, because he will always
>> be WAY behind any rogue who takes that skill. If the classes didn't
>> exist you could make a character who's good at, for example, sword
>> fighting and sneaking.
>
> If you dont like the classes then make your own, thats what GM's are
> for the rules are not set in stone you can create your own settings to
> play.
It's not about the classes. It's about their existance. All serious-play RPG
systems have dropped the idea of "class". Unfortunately serious-play RPG is
a fringe of the hack'n'slash RPG community. Tell me what class you are, man.
> Again thats what GM's are for. If a crossbow is fired against your
> head you instantly die, same if your throat is cut while sleeping. The
> GM can determine if any blow is fatal without having to roll dice.
A crossbow shot on a unarmoured man in the Middle Ages in the chest was
almost always lethal, and in the best case, you will have a wound you will
always remember.
>> - Level cap on skills. You cannot have a knowledgeable NPC (i.e.
>> one with many ranks in some knowledge() skill) without that NPC being
>> high-level. Which means that the NPC will also have many hit points,
>> good saving throws, relatively good attack bonus, and a load of
>> cash/expensive equipment. (this is actually a NEW flaw in d20)
>
> NPC's are not subject to character generation rules. GM can create any
> character. There is a reason you have a human GM instead of just
> playing it solo from a book
Yeah, I love playing DnD it's great! Because it let's me do anything as a
gamemaster! I changed the main stats to Dexterity, Strength, Health and IQ,
and use 3 6-sided dice instead d20, and modified the damages of weapons (all
to d6's based on Strenght), and modified the spell list (I found a great
book for that "GURPS Grimore"), and thrown out the classes, and added a lot
of skills, and thrown out the level system, and changed the cleric system,
and based character generation on points instead of dice! I love this game
now! For DnD let's me do anything I want as a GameMaster!!!
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
> AUGH! STOP SAYING STUPID THINGS. Of COURSE a mook with a crossbow
> isn't going to be a major threat to a highly trained badass soldier.
> Mr. Badass doesn't stand with his vitals in front of the bolt! You
> are rewarded for being better.
My god, you need a reality check. No fuckin' badass soldier is going to
survive a 300lbs strength crossbow shot in the chest. It doesn't matter
wether he killed one orc, 100 orcs, 10000 orcs or 1000000 orcs. He'll die
the same way.
>This is cinematic roleplay, people.
It is? Well here we've got a point at last! I hate cinematic bullshit. So we
agree upon, that DnD is only good for cinematic fantasy? Do we have an
agreement here? If that's the case, I won't argue anymore.
> you want John McClane to have keeled over dead the first time a
> terrorist shoots him?
Yeah, that would be cool.
> No, he takes it in the shoulder and keeps
> fighting. If you're playing a combat oriented game and your only
> character dies at the first hit, even after you've put countless
> hours of play into him, then it's just not fun.
So we agree that DnD is only suited to combat oriented games. More and more
points we agree upon ;).
>> There's a downside to the easy balancing, too. It encourages
>> powergaming.
>
> You were just trying to make a character that's good at swordfighting
> AND sneaking AND singing AND dressing AND macrame AND tantra, and
> you're accusing D20 of powergaming? There are suboptimal choices, but
> there is actually LESS possible powergaming than, say, GURPS. (I had
> a 75 point character in GURPS exploding 125-150 point NPCs with a
> shovel because I had worked the system to point out its flaws.)
You had a mindless GM then. You see, more mature systems (as GURPS opposed
to DnD) demand more mature players and more mature GM's. If you can't find
such people, too bad, then DnD is realy the best choice for you.
Don't get offended, please ;).
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
> leading a mass of mooks. The leader would wade into the enemy's mass
> of mooks, and cut a breach for his men to pour into. Generally, the
> only threat to this warrior was his counterpart leading the other
> unit. He was simply so much more skilled than the conscripts that
> even en masse they were no real threat to him unless they got lucky.
Reality check man! Mass combat is not a series of duels! No Conan can help
agains an homeless shot from a crossbow, or against a random sword slash...
> If you model that same battle in d20 you will (after an admittedly
> obnoxious amount of dice rolling, one of the weaknesses of d20 is
> that it does not do large scale well) get similar results. If you
> model the battle in WFRP, Zhang Fei will get stabbed in the groin
> five steps in and die.
Yeah. I am realy sorry to enlighten you, and destroy your myths but that, my
dear friend is reality.
> Then they'll turn to GURPS or
> something, and that's just tragic.
What's so tragic about it?
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
> Ray Dillinger <be...@sonic.net> wrote in
> news:iOSrc.12654$Fo4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
>
>>
>> I don't think I've seen any evidence in this thread that you've
>> actually spent any significant amount of time playing anything
>> else.
>
> GURPS,
Out of this list the leader.
> Palladium (RIFTS, Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas and Superspies, and
> Fantasy),
That count's as one. I don't like the RIFTS system (not because of some
particular flaw), but I only played them, never GM'd. Ok.
> WFRP,
Quite good if you adopt a special set of rules, that fleshes out the
character and darkness of the system.
> Over The Edge
I'll take a look at it.
> Paranoia(1, 2, and 5)
As for what it was intended for -- brilliant :).
> Basic D&D, AD&D,
No comment.
> World Tree
Unheard. I'll take a look. Who's the publisher?
> Ars Magica
Very good magic system. And a quite good rules system. The background is
brilliand.
> D20 (Modern, D&D3, Star Wars, and Wheel of Time)
That count's as one.
> Top Secret SI
Who's the publisher?
> Deadlands
I don't like the Genre.
> Darksword Adventures
Who's the publisher?
> Earthdawn
Repeats quite a few DnD mistakes.
> White Wolf (Vampire, Changling, and even Street Fighter 2)
Except Street Fighter, those systems require mature players and a mature
Narrator. Unsuprisingly without that the systems suck ;). Storyteller is
great if your aim is to tell a Story. And the best of them all is Wraith...
> Any guesses which ones I
> consider good and which ones I consider bad? There's several in each
> category.
Let me hear that. It will tell me something about you.
GOOD GAMES (not all very good, but good) IMVHO : GURPS, Amber Diceless,
Storyteller (Wraith, Mage, Vampire), WEG's D6, Toon, Kult (briliant
background, brilliant game if you have a good group to play with),
Conspiracy X, CP2020, Warhammer (after "Fall's Tales" mod), Chaosiums Zew
Cthulhu (as for the genre), Violence RPG (Munchkinism from time to time ;),
the design is brilliant), Puppetland, All Flesh Must be Eaten! (as for the
genre), Unknown Armies, In Nomine, and a couple others which names are lost
to me at the moment.
BAD GAMES IMVHO : Too many to list ;)
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Chipacabra
news:c8q9gk$92n$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net:
>> Again thats what GM's are for. If a crossbow is fired against your
>> head you instantly die, same if your throat is cut while sleeping.
>> The GM can determine if any blow is fatal without having to roll
>> dice.
>
> A crossbow shot on a unarmoured man in the Middle Ages in the chest
> was almost always lethal, and in the best case, you will have a wound
> you will always remember.
A crossbow shot on and unarmoured man was almost NEVER immediately
lethal. Puncture wounds only kill you if they hit a vital, and there's
not THAT much vital. Infection is a whole other story, and a non-issue in
a world with Cure Disease readily available.
>
> Yeah, I love playing DnD it's great! Because it let's me do anything
> as a gamemaster! I changed the main stats to Dexterity, Strength,
> Health and IQ, and use 3 6-sided dice instead d20, and modified the
> damages of weapons (all to d6's based on Strenght), and modified the
> spell list (I found a great book for that "GURPS Grimore"), and thrown
> out the classes, and added a lot of skills, and thrown out the level
> system, and changed the cleric system, and based character generation
> on points instead of dice! I love this game now! For DnD let's me do
> anything I want as a GameMaster!!!
Jackass.
Chipacabra
> Chipacabra wrote:
>> Elethiomel <ter...@broadpark.no> wrote in
>> news:40af...@news.broadpark.no:
>
>> AUGH! STOP SAYING STUPID THINGS. Of COURSE a mook with a crossbow
>> isn't going to be a major threat to a highly trained badass soldier.
>> Mr. Badass doesn't stand with his vitals in front of the bolt! You
>> are rewarded for being better.
>
> My god, you need a reality check. No fuckin' badass soldier is going
> to survive a 300lbs strength crossbow shot in the chest. It doesn't
> matter wether he killed one orc, 100 orcs, 10000 orcs or 1000000 orcs.
> He'll die the same way.
PAY ATTENTION. As long as he has hit points left, he doesn't take that
crossbow bolt in a lethal location. He is too aware of the danger to be
killed by some rookie.
> So we agree that DnD is only suited to combat oriented games. More and
> more points we agree upon ;).
Like, gee, roguelikes?
> You had a mindless GM then. You see, more mature systems (as GURPS
> opposed to DnD) demand more mature players and more mature GM's. If
> you can't find such people, too bad, then DnD is realy the best choice
> for you.
Have you even played GURPS? Its brokenness is just as well documented as
AD&D's. The difference is that no one has bothered to fix GURPS.
Chipacabra
> Chipacabra wrote:
>> Ray Dillinger <be...@sonic.net> wrote in
>> news:iOSrc.12654$Fo4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think I've seen any evidence in this thread that you've
>>> actually spent any significant amount of time playing anything
>>> else.
>>
>> GURPS,
>
> Out of this list the leader.
Fundamentally broken. Not worth playing.
>> Palladium (RIFTS, Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas and Superspies, and
>> Fantasy),
>
> That count's as one. I don't like the RIFTS system (not because of
> some particular flaw), but I only played them, never GM'd. Ok.
Flawed by bad editing and sloppy rules. Frex, in N&S, some martial arts
get the ability to inflict a critical on a 20 at level 2, even though a
20 is ALWAYS a crit.
>> WFRP,
>
> Quite good if you adopt a special set of rules, that fleshes out the
> character and darkness of the system.
I like the setting. The rules are clumsy, restrictive tablefests.
>> Over The Edge
>
> I'll take a look at it.
Pure genius. The main selling point is that you can make literally ANY
character and make it work.
>> Paranoia(1, 2, and 5)
>
> As for what it was intended for -- brilliant :).
It's a bit silly to talk about the quality of the rules for this game,
really.
>> World Tree
>
> Unheard. I'll take a look. Who's the publisher?
Padwolf Publishing. It's a specialty game, really. The magic system is
similar to Ars Magica, sort of, but a little more flavorful.
>
>> Ars Magica
>
> Very good magic system. And a quite good rules system. The background
> is brilliand.
>
It's a good'n.
>> D20 (Modern, D&D3, Star Wars, and Wheel of Time)
>
> That count's as one.
You already know where I stand on this one.
>> Top Secret SI
>
> Who's the publisher?
Old TSR game. Not great.
>> Deadlands
>
> I don't like the Genre.
It's an interesting system. Supports the genre well, but very specialized
in doing so.
>> Darksword Adventures
>
> Who's the publisher?
Oh, I don't even remember. It had an interesting free-form magic system,
but was barely complete otherwise.
>> Earthdawn
>
> Repeats quite a few DnD mistakes.
I like the setting, but the rules have some problems, mostly in making
each swordsman identical, etc.
>> White Wolf (Vampire, Changling, and even Street Fighter 2)
>
> Except Street Fighter, those systems require mature players and a
> mature Narrator. Unsuprisingly without that the systems suck ;).
> Storyteller is great if your aim is to tell a Story. And the best of
> them all is Wraith...
Tolerable. I don't like the setting, but the rules don't piss me off.:)
Let me add Call of Cthulu from your list, had forgotten about it. Great
setting, good rules for one-off games, little long-term campaign staying
power.
Kornel Kisielewicz
> "Kornel Kisielewicz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote in
> news:c8q9gk$92n$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net:
>
>
>>> Again thats what GM's are for. If a crossbow is fired against your
>>> head you instantly die, same if your throat is cut while sleeping.
>>> The GM can determine if any blow is fatal without having to roll
>>> dice.
>>
>> A crossbow shot on a unarmoured man in the Middle Ages in the chest
>> was almost always lethal, and in the best case, you will have a wound
>> you will always remember.
>
> A crossbow shot on and unarmoured man was almost NEVER immediately
> lethal.
Imidately nah. But you had small chances of full recovery.
> Puncture wounds only kill you if they hit a vital, and there's
> not THAT much vital.
Ok, please stand against that wall. I'll take my crossbow, don't worry,
you'll probably recover, cause I won't hit any vital organ. Hey man, do you
know what we are talking about? Of course, if every ten people squad has a
Cleric with them who shoots Curelights's (Cure light wounds for the
uneducated) with the speed of a SMG, then that's another story. Without
magic, you're dead. Tell me, who the hell would use crossbows, if "they're
no good"? Life is not an Action Movie, y'know.
> Infection is a whole other story, and a
> non-issue in a world with Cure Disease readily available.
Yeah, in GenRogue there's no Cure Disease. Cure Disease sucks. Of course
with a 100000 men army you have enough Mages/Clerics to cast Cure Diseases
on everyone? Talk about realism, one way or the other.
>> Yeah, I love playing DnD it's great! Because it let's me do anything
>> as a gamemaster! I changed the main stats to Dexterity, Strength,
>> Health and IQ, and use 3 6-sided dice instead d20, and modified the
>> damages of weapons (all to d6's based on Strenght), and modified the
>> spell list (I found a great book for that "GURPS Grimore"), and
>> thrown out the classes, and added a lot of skills, and thrown out
>> the level system, and changed the cleric system, and based character
>> generation on points instead of dice! I love this game now! For DnD
>> let's me do anything I want as a GameMaster!!!
>
> Jackass.
Thank you. A lack of sensible comment proves me, that I was right ;)
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
> "Kornel Kisielewicz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote in
> news:c8qa09$9fv$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net:
>> to survive a 300lbs strength crossbow shot in the chest. It doesn't
>> matter wether he killed one orc, 100 orcs, 10000 orcs or 1000000
>> orcs. He'll die the same way.
>
> PAY ATTENTION. As long as he has hit points left, he doesn't take that
> crossbow bolt in a lethal location. He is too aware of the danger to
> be killed by some rookie.
Come again? It may be my poor english skill, but the above sentence seems
completely stupid to me. The warrior "doesn't take that crossbow bolt"?
Cool! I would realy wan't to live in such a world -- "I'll take three hits
this battle, no vitals, John. I have enough skill to do that. Prepare my
board sword.". You'll never see a crossbow bolt that kills you, until it's
too late. Unless it's the Matrix...
>> So we agree that DnD is only suited to combat oriented games. More
>> and more points we agree upon ;).
>
> Like, gee, roguelikes?
Yeah. Well you see no one actually warned you -- I'm a ASCII-permadeath-plot
guy. And I wan't roguelikes to extend towards a not-combat-driven, but
story-driven game... Note that I never said, DnD is bad for roguelikes. I
just say it sucks as a RPG system.
>> You had a mindless GM then. You see, more mature systems (as GURPS
>> opposed to DnD) demand more mature players and more mature GM's. If
>> you can't find such people, too bad, then DnD is realy the best
>> choice for you.
>
> Have you even played GURPS? Its brokenness is just as well documented
> as AD&D's. The difference is that no one has bothered to fix GURPS.
LOL!
Except world-specific additions, and a few optional rules from Compedium I &
II "Shadow World", the game I'm GM'ing 7 years now, completely follows
GURPS. Both me, and all my players (10 up to day, 6 of them being regular
Convention attenders) agree upon that GURPS is the best system created
up-to-date. I never had to put any house-rules to fix anything in the
system. Maybe because my players were mature enough.
Anyway, don't talk about things you're unaware from. Go to sjgame.com, and
there you'll see that a new version of GURPS will be in-print soon.
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
> "Kornel Kisielewicz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote in
> news:c8qbn9$ap4$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net:
>
>> Chipacabra wrote:
>>>> I don't think I've seen any evidence in this thread that you've
>>>> actually spent any significant amount of time playing anything
>>>> else.
>>>
>>> GURPS,
>>
>> Out of this list the leader.
>
> Fundamentally broken. Not worth playing.
You keep talling me, that GURPS is fundamentaly broken, but you haven't
given me even _one_ example of that, even _one_ reason.
>>> WFRP,
>>
>> Quite good if you adopt a special set of rules, that fleshes out the
>> character and darkness of the system.
>
> I like the setting. The rules are clumsy, restrictive tablefests.
Yeah, I could agree with that. That's also what the addon is for.
Unfortunately all materials are polish-only :(
>>> Paranoia(1, 2, and 5)
>>
>> As for what it was intended for -- brilliant :).
>
> It's a bit silly to talk about the quality of the rules for this game,
> really.
No it's not. Considering the whole game is a joke, the rules perfectly
uphold that.
>>> World Tree
>>
>> Unheard. I'll take a look. Who's the publisher?
>
> Padwolf Publishing. It's a specialty game, really. The magic system is
> similar to Ars Magica, sort of, but a little more flavorful.
Interesting, I'll try to find it.
>>> Ars Magica
>>
>> Very good magic system. And a quite good rules system. The background
>> is brilliand.
>
> It's a good'n.
One reason?
>>> Top Secret SI
>>
>> Who's the publisher?
>
> Old TSR game. Not great.
I'll take your word for that. TSR + Dumb Title = probably a bad game.
>>> Deadlands
>>
>> I don't like the Genre.
>
> It's an interesting system. Supports the genre well, but very
> specialized in doing so.
Being European, I can't get myself to like the cowboy stuff.
>>> Earthdawn
>>
>> Repeats quite a few DnD mistakes.
>
> I like the setting, but the rules have some problems, mostly in making
> each swordsman identical, etc.
Try GURPS ;). There you can make any character you want ;).
> Let me add Call of Cthulu from your list, had forgotten about it.
> Great setting, good rules for one-off games, little long-term
> campaign staying power.
The last problem is due to the fact that Cthulu has quite a high mortality
rate ;). And it wouldn't be Cthulu if it wouldn't ;).
How many games of the ones I listed have you played? Or at least read?
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
>
>
>> I'm not going into this dispute, out of lack of time. You will
>
> I've said many times that there ARE. I just said the market was
> dying. FASA was crumbling, West End was crumbling, Palladium was
> crumbling (but has managed to cling to survival.) Even White Wolf and
> SJG took their financial hits.
Ever wondered why?
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Chipacabra
$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net:
Because there just aren't enough buyers to support a smalltime game
publisher, especially if his game has to compete with dozens of others.
For some reason Hasbro was actually confused when D&D failed to perform
on the scale of M:tG, even though they had been told it wouldn't.
Chipacabra
>> Puncture wounds only kill you if they hit a vital, and there's
>> not THAT much vital.
>
> Ok, please stand against that wall. I'll take my crossbow, don't
> worry, you'll probably recover, cause I won't hit any vital organ. Hey
> man, do you know what we are talking about? Of course, if every ten
> people squad has a Cleric with them who shoots Curelights's (Cure
> light wounds for the uneducated) with the speed of a SMG, then that's
> another story. Without magic, you're dead. Tell me, who the hell would
> use crossbows, if "they're no good"? Life is not an Action Movie,
> y'know.
Jeez. Try looking up what you're talking about here. More people survived
ranged wounds than melee because they didn't have people stick around to
make sure they stayed dead, and the melee survival rate was well over
50%. Why bother? Because when a mook gets shot with a crossbow he stops
fighting. It doesn't matter if he dies or not. All that matters is that
he quits. By far, most injuries were not immediately life threatening.
That is, the damage caused by the bolt is not what killed the victim.
>> Infection is a whole other story, and a
>> non-issue in a world with Cure Disease readily available.
>
> Yeah, in GenRogue there's no Cure Disease. Cure Disease sucks. Of
> course with a 100000 men army you have enough Mages/Clerics to cast
> Cure Diseases on everyone? Talk about realism, one way or the other.
They have plenty of time. Infection kills in a matter of weeks, not
minutes.
So, does GenRogue have your wounds get infected if you don't clean and
sterilize them?
>> Jackass.
>
> Thank you. A lack of sensible comment proves me, that I was right ;)
>
Jackass. I'm telling you with all love, so that you will please, pretty
please, stop being a jackass. Especially in public.
Chipacabra
> Come again? It may be my poor english skill, but the above sentence
> seems completely stupid to me. The warrior "doesn't take that crossbow
> bolt"? Cool! I would realy wan't to live in such a world -- "I'll take
> three hits this battle, no vitals, John. I have enough skill to do
> that. Prepare my board sword.". You'll never see a crossbow bolt that
> kills you, until it's too late. Unless it's the Matrix...
No, it's your poor comprehension skills. You can see the crossbow just
fine. You can see that he's trying to shoot you. Why would you turn so
that your heart is pointed at it? You turn so that if you DO get shot,
it's in the arm, or the shoulder, or whatever. When your HP get too low,
then you're just too beat up to keep getting out of the way.
> LOL!
> Except world-specific additions, and a few optional rules from
> Compedium I & II "Shadow World", the game I'm GM'ing 7 years now,
> completely follows GURPS. Both me, and all my players (10 up to day, 6
> of them being regular Convention attenders) agree upon that GURPS is
> the best system created up-to-date. I never had to put any house-rules
> to fix anything in the system. Maybe because my players were mature
> enough.
Yeah? I'll bet that if you give me any of the characters in your
campaign, I can make a character that has exactly the same skill levels,
BETTER skills in the defaults, AND costs fewer points. The system is
broken. It is known to be broken. If you haven't noticed that it's
broken, then you need to work on your critical skills.
Kornel Kisielewicz
> "Kornel Kisielewicz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote in
> news:c8qk77$ft1$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net:
>
>
>>> Puncture wounds only kill you if they hit a vital, and there's
>>> not THAT much vital.
>>
>> Ok, please stand against that wall. I'll take my crossbow, don't
>> worry, you'll probably recover, cause I won't hit any vital organ.
>> Hey man, do you know what we are talking about? Of course, if every
>> ten people squad has a Cleric with them who shoots Curelights's (Cure
>> light wounds for the uneducated) with the speed of a SMG, then that's
>> another story. Without magic, you're dead. Tell me, who the hell
>> would use crossbows, if "they're no good"? Life is not an Action
>> Movie, y'know.
>
> Jeez. Try looking up what you're talking about here. More people
> survived ranged wounds than melee because they didn't have people
> stick around to make sure they stayed dead, and the melee survival
> rate was well over 50%. Why bother?
Basically, you're "dead" though -- you won't be able to fight anymore. And
that's the main point.
>>> Infection is a whole other story, and a
>>> non-issue in a world with Cure Disease readily available.
>>
>> Yeah, in GenRogue there's no Cure Disease. Cure Disease sucks. Of
>> course with a 100000 men army you have enough Mages/Clerics to cast
>> Cure Diseases on everyone? Talk about realism, one way or the other.
> They have plenty of time. Infection kills in a matter of weeks, not
> minutes.
> So, does GenRogue have your wounds get infected if you don't clean and
> sterilize them?
Yeah. That would be lovely (I once had almost killed a couple of players in
P&P because thay didn't treat their wound properly). Surviving in GenRogue
basically means "not getting hit", and not "keeping the HPs above zero".
Before you ask -- you can also die from overdosing "healing potions"
(although those work differently then in a standard fantasy RPG) .
>>> Jackass.
>>
>> Thank you. A lack of sensible comment proves me, that I was right ;)
>
> Jackass. I'm telling you with all love, so that you will please,
> pretty please, stop being a jackass. Especially in public.
Interseting opinion you gave on my person. I wonder if it's true in this
case. Unfortunately you don't have any arguments to back up this opinion, so
sadly I will have to disregard it.
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
> "Kornel Kisielewicz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote in
> news:c8qkur$ghu$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net:
>
>> Come again? It may be my poor english skill, but the above sentence
>> seems completely stupid to me. The warrior "doesn't take that
>> crossbow bolt"? Cool! I would realy wan't to live in such a world --
>> "I'll take three hits this battle, no vitals, John. I have enough
>> skill to do that. Prepare my board sword.". You'll never see a
>> crossbow bolt that kills you, until it's too late. Unless it's the
>> Matrix...
>
> No, it's your poor comprehension skills. You can see the crossbow just
> fine. You can see that he's trying to shoot you.
If he is in your field of vision, and you can notice him. Which is in 95%
not the case in a bigger battle.
> Why would you turn so
> that your heart is pointed at it? You turn so that if you DO get shot,
> it's in the arm, or the shoulder, or whatever. When your HP get too
> low, then you're just too beat up to keep getting out of the way.
You're trying to tell me that warrior knows wether every of the 100
crossbows on the other side is aiming at him or not? Remember we're talking
about bigger scale engagements....
>> LOL!
>> Except world-specific additions, and a few optional rules from
>> Compedium I & II "Shadow World", the game I'm GM'ing 7 years now,
>> completely follows GURPS. Both me, and all my players (10 up to day,
>> 6 of them being regular Convention attenders) agree upon that GURPS
>> is the best system created up-to-date. I never had to put any
>> house-rules to fix anything in the system. Maybe because my players
>> were mature enough.
>
> Yeah? I'll bet that if you give me any of the characters in your
> campaign, I can make a character that has exactly the same skill
> levels, BETTER skills in the defaults, AND costs fewer points.
Who the hell cares? It's gameplay that counts. The character creation
process is monitored by the GM, so no such problem would ever arise. And
players can only advance in skills they learned during the adventure or
downtime.
> The system is broken. It is known to be broken. If you haven't noticed
> that it's broken, then you need to work on your critical skills.
Any system so flexible like GURPS has a lot of room for exploits. What it
gives though is great freedom. It's a fair price to pay. Especialy that
mature players DO enjoy the freedom, and DONT take advantage of exploits.
Yeah, you could start fixin' GURPS exploits. But I far better like a more
concise system with flaws, then a system full of special cases. If you're
the type of person who playing a game immidately tries to munchkinize your
character, okay, I'm sorry. But then stop telling the people who play for
ROLE-playing that their system is broken. For it's not the systems that are
broken. It's the players and GM's.
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Jeff Lait
> Chipacabra wrote:
> > "Kornel Kisielewicz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote in
> > news:c8qbn9$ap4$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net:
> >
> >> Chipacabra wrote:
> >>>> I don't think I've seen any evidence in this thread that you've
> >>>> actually spent any significant amount of time playing anything
> >>>> else.
> >>>
> >>> GURPS,
> >>
> >> Out of this list the leader.
> >
> > Fundamentally broken. Not worth playing.
>
> You keep talling me, that GURPS is fundamentaly broken, but you haven't
> given me even _one_ example of that, even _one_ reason.
I'll bite. GURPS great strength is also its great weakness. It seeks
to enable a completely generic point based roleplaying system. This,
however, has two possible outcomes:
1) If the players are the least bit powergame oriented, they will
min/max to their hearts content. This means the slightest flaw in the
point structure will be hideously exploited, ruining the game for all
involved.
2) If the players are "mature", ie: they want to design characters
rather than the most powerful uber creatures possible, they will
eschew such silliness and ignore flaws in the point structure to build
the characters as they wish. In this case, however, the point
structure becomes more and more irrelevant.
GURPs would be better as a *role*playing system, in many ways, if they
didn't provide *any* point values. One would be expected to merely
negotiate with the DM and determine valid characters. Of course, at
this level of play, your exact game mechanism becomes more irrelevant.
Now, as for GURPs as a *roll*playing system, we are talking about a
different matter. Here points are valid, as one is engaged in
traditional munchkin competitive character building. But, as has
already been argued in this thread, d20 provids an excellent frame
work for that sort of endeavour. d20 has the added advantage of being
easier to balance as a DM, provides fixed roles for the players, and
hence is a lot easier for newcomers to learn the skills that would let
them become mature. When they are mature, I'd argue the system does
not matter, and they should just raid whatever systems attract their
interest.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
Hansjoerg Malthaner
> Hi,
>
> I'm thinking about modelling a lot of my game based on the d20 system. I
> was wondering what people's opinions about the d20 system were, and if it
> would be worthwhile to pursue?
My very personal opion: I absolutely dislike the d20 system.
I've played a few games that used it, and I didn't like it at all. In
one case it even made me stop playing although I liked the rest of the
game :(
If you want me as a player, don't use the d20 system. But I'm only one
of a few million potential players, so don't give too much on that :)
> thanks,
> crichmon
c.u.
Hajo
David Damerell
>D20 manages to create believable high-heroic-fantasy. I can agree with that.
>As long as I liked heroic fantasy, it was fine. But when my preferences
>switched to dark/hard fantasy it changed.
So when you say it sucks, you actually mean it's a tool for a different
job. "This screwdriver sucks! I can't put nails in with it!"
>You know why I started hating D20? It's not because of the system (which
>IMHO can only be used for heroic play), it's because of stupid WotC
>politics. They are practicaly destoying the RPG market with D20.
Selling a product that people want to buy! The bastards!
>systems against that giant... Example -- when I was young, I was playing
>StarWars D6 - it was a cool game with simple mechanics.
It was also dead years before d20.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
David Damerell
>never agree with me, blinded by WotC system. The point of view I presented
>here is shared by many people from the publishers/reporters branch of the
>RPG industry. If you think you're wiser then them, I won't argue anymore.
Suuure. And the lurkers support you in email, too, I bet.
>Anyway, I hope I didn't offend you. If that is what you feel, I'm sorry, it
>weren't ment that way. I'm just sick of people who praise DnD as a great
>game, either not knowing what a true RPG session can be like, or not knowing
>other systems.
This is a bit of a straw man, since plenty of us have played numerous
other systems and different styles of play.
David Damerell
>It's not about the classes. It's about their existance. All serious-play RPG
>systems have dropped the idea of "class".
Wait, aren't you a fan of the White Wolf games? Because the difference
between those "serious" systems and bad old D&D is that in a White Wolf
game your class comes with a rigid personality stereotype.
The only difference between being an nth level fighter and an nth
generation Malkavian is that every bloody Malkavian is interesting and
novel in exactly the same way.
>A crossbow shot on a unarmoured man in the Middle Ages in the chest was
>almost always lethal, and in the best case, you will have a wound you will
>always remember.
The argument from realism is still utterly bogus.
David Damerell
>Chipacabra wrote:
>>I've said many times that there ARE. I just said the market was
>>dying. FASA was crumbling, West End was crumbling, Palladium was
>>crumbling (but has managed to cling to survival.) Even White Wolf and
>>SJG took their financial hits.
>Ever wondered why?
Nothing to do with d20, since most of these companies collapsed or had
their problems long before d20, so what's your point?
David Damerell
>It is bad because once you are immune to a jackass mook on an
>even playing field, there is no interest or joy remaining in
>the challenge that jackass mook does not present.
But that's because you've gone onto bigger challenges.
>It is bad because the leveling rules invite you to think (as I
>see that you do) in terms of doing stuff for its effect on
>levelling your character, rather than in terms of doing stuff
>for reasons your character might actually care about. That
>makes story development and character motivation secondary in
>every case to powergaming.
This assumes that XP is awarded on any basis other than as a reward for
good play.
David Damerell
>The fundamental flaw of D&D, AD&D, D&D2e, D&D3e, D20, and in
>my opinion most roguelike games, is this:
>There is too much difference between low-level and high-level
>characters.
Nothing compels you to use the full range of levels - in fact, it'd be a
rare tabletop group who played together for the years necessary. If you
want to start with more competent characters, start at 2nd or 3rd level
(that said, a 1st level 3e character is a lot more competent than a 1st
level 2e or 1e character); if you don't want to play with demigods, don't.
Almost all the xD&D I've played has been with 2nd-7th level characters.
Sure, you can criticise a roguelike for this - where the player will
obviously have to span the full level range to win [1] - but don't
criticise a tabletop RPG for attempting to depict everything from herdsmen
to demigods.
[1] That said, modern tactics in NetHack for combat wombats often involve
staying at level 14 out of 30 - so this is by no means universal even in
roguelikes.
David Damerell
>Chipacabra wrote:
>>The leveling rules state plainly that activities that do not further the
>>plot do not get you experience. You can get full experience awards
>>without killing a single monster.
>Remember that you were advocating the mechanics of this system
>for roguelike games. It is hard to write a computer program
>that knows whether an action advances the plot or character
>development.
Do you want character advancement at all?
If so, this is equally a problem for any character advancement mechanism.
If not, then acknowledge that some people _do_ want character advancement
in roguelikes...
Raymond Martineau
<hansjoerg...@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
>
>My very personal opion: I absolutely dislike the d20 system.
>
>I've played a few games that used it, and I didn't like it at all. In
>one case it even made me stop playing although I liked the rest of the
>game :(
You need to be a bit more specific in that regard. Otherwise, people will
assume that the character's death was the reason you stopped playing.
Hansjoerg Malthaner
My character still lives - better said it hibernates on the hard disk. I
could continue, but now it's 17 months that I stopped playing and I'm
still don't like the system.
It's been comercial games. I've bought them, offered as a set, and I
assume my opinon would be ignored by the developers anymways. I mean
after I've bought them, why should they listen? The product was
finished, the games were old already when I bought them, and using D20
isn't a bug exactly ;)
I could've known the fact if I had read the box cover thoroughly enough,
they told which system they use ... so it's solely my fault to have
bought a game that uses a system that I don't like. I even played it for
a while, because the world/story/quests were really catchy, but then the
mechanics destroyed the fun, and I got appalled. I still think I like
the content, and really wish they'd have used other rules ...
Don't care much about my message. It's really a very personal thingy.
Don't base your decision to use D20 rules on my message. I've seen there
are quite a lot pro-d20 messages here, so you won't loose much by
ignoring me.
c.u.
Hajo
Kornel Kisielewicz
> Kornel Kisielewicz <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote:
>> never agree with me, blinded by WotC system. The point of view I
>> presented here is shared by many people from the
>> publishers/reporters branch of the RPG industry. If you think you're
>> wiser then them, I won't argue anymore.
> Suuure. And the lurkers support you in email, too, I bet.
What's your point?
>> Anyway, I hope I didn't offend you. If that is what you feel, I'm
>> sorry, it weren't ment that way. I'm just sick of people who praise
>> DnD as a great game, either not knowing what a true RPG session can
>> be like, or not knowing other systems.
>
> This is a bit of a straw man, since plenty of us have played numerous
> other systems and different styles of play.
Plenty != All.
Kornel Kisielewicz
> Kornel Kisielewcz <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote:
>> D20 manages to create believable high-heroic-fantasy. I can agree
>> with that. As long as I liked heroic fantasy, it was fine. But when
>> my preferences switched to dark/hard fantasy it changed.
>
> So when you say it sucks, you actually mean it's a tool for a
> different job. "This screwdriver sucks! I can't put nails in with it!"
I like your style ;).
"D20 is fine for high-fantasy" && "D20 sucks" => "D20 high-fantasy sucks"
And the latter is just my opinion. And atually not even a opinion, but a
result of being tired with the "rogulikes suck"-type roguelike games.
>> You know why I started hating D20? It's not because of the system
>> (which IMHO can only be used for heroic play), it's because of
>> stupid WotC politics. They are practicaly destoying the RPG market
>> with D20.
> Selling a product that people want to buy! The bastards!
Basicaly, yes. They're destroying competition with unfair monopolist
practices -> d20 open gaming licence.
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
> Kornel Kisielewicz <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote:
>> It's not about the classes. It's about their existance. All
>> serious-play RPG systems have dropped the idea of "class".
>
> Wait, aren't you a fan of the White Wolf games?
Rather not (with the notable exception of Wraith).
> Because the difference
> between those "serious" systems and bad old D&D is that in a White
> Wolf game your class comes with a rigid personality stereotype.
... which is a role-playing aid, not and not a rule.
> The only difference between being an nth level fighter and an nth
> generation Malkavian is that every bloody Malkavian is interesting and
> novel in exactly the same way.
...when played by a munchkin. But thats not the pint here. A immature player
can easily destroy even the best Storyteller session, and I know people that
can play realy immersive and full of depth DnD games. It's just the question
how much rules yu have to bend, and how much rules help you develop
something interesting and immersive.
Honestly, the system of my choice is Amber DRPG. But not many players manage
to cope without dierolls. And of course Amber DRPG would be impossible to
implement in a roguelike ;)
>> A crossbow shot on a unarmoured man in the Middle Ages in the chest
>> was almost always lethal, and in the best case, you will have a
>> wound you will always remember.
>
> The argument from realism is still utterly bogus.
That is?
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Ray Dillinger
> Do you want character advancement at all?
I want character advancement. I just don't want so much of
it, or the kind of it, that it becomes more important than
being smart.
The question is one of game balance. I see Angband as a
failure because resistances dominate gameplay, and because
character level dominates gameplay. I want a game where
gameplay dominates most other factors, and character
advancement is mostly about new gameplay opportunities
rather than new power levels.
Topped-out characters with about 10x the hits of beginning
characters, who consistently hit with about 10x the damage
a beginning character can do, suits me fine.
With the bosses scaled appropriately, the final battles are
no less epic in feeling and import; the difference is that
a very smart player with a level-six character actually
*should* be capable of exploiting tactical advantages
against the biggest baddest bosses, while stupid players
with level-fifty characters *should* still be able to get
killed by a bunch of goblins.
Bear
Martin Read
>David Damerell wrote:
>> Selling a product that people want to buy! The bastards!
>
>Basicaly, yes. They're destroying competition with unfair monopolist
>practices -> d20 open gaming licence.
You are conflating the d20 System Trademark License (required in order
to be able to say your game uses "the d20 System") with the Open Gaming
License.
The d20 System Trademark License is quite restrictive - but shit, man,
it's a trademark licence, of *course* it's restrictive. However, you
only have to use the d20STL if you want to put the nice d20 System logos
and licensing text on your product.
The OGL is fairly liberal - for instance, you could, if you wanted, take
the complete unedited text of the System Reference Document, add your own
character generation and advancement rules, print it, bind it, and sell
it, without paying a single cent in royalties to Hasbro. Heck, you could
even just print, bind, and sell the unaltered text of the SRD if you
thought you could make any money doing so...
Green Ronin's _Mutants & Masterminds_ is an example of a game which
takes a big chunk of the mechanics of the System Reference Document,
attaches a big chunk of stuff that Green Ronin have designed themselves,
and produces a complete superhero roleplaying game. Because they don't
actually use the "d20 System" trademark, they aren't subject to the d20
System Trademark Licence.
Mutants and Masterminds is about to go into a revised second printing.
Doesn't sound like Green Ronin have been destroyed by Wizards of the
Coast.
m.
--
\_\/_/| Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\ / | their deadliest weapon is the art of surprise you get no warning they
\/ | just drop from the skies
------+ -- Scary Bitches, "Lesbian Vampires From Outer Space"
Martin Read
"Argument from realism" - saying that a feature is a good idea because
it represents reality well. This is only true if it does so in an
interesting and exciting manner that improves gameplay. For example,
_Phoenix Command_ has extremely complex firearms rules that are doubtless very
realistic. However, they're also as dull as distilled water.
Never start by telling people how "realistic" a mechanic is; start by
telling them how much *fun* it is. Likewise, never start by telling
people how "unrealistic" a mechanic is; start by telling them why it's
not as much *fun* as some other mechanic for the same thing would be.
People play games because they're *fun*. Gas gangrene, amputation, and
peritonitis are *not fun*, to me at least. If I want a world of gas
gangrene, peritonitis, amputation, and chlorine, I'll go read about the
wars of 1914-45; military history makes quite interesting (if somewhat
depressing) reading.
Leaping heroically into the fray and hewing about you with the mighty
sword "Foecleaver", or smiting scurrilous scoundrels with spectacular
sorcery, on the other hand, can be quite a fun thing to play a game
about. And, well, Dungeons & Dragons is quite a good game for going
down holes in the ground, hewing fearsome foes and fiends apart with
the mighty sword "Foecleaver" or smiting scurrilous scoundrels with
spectacular sorceries, and pillaging their cooling corpses.
Kornel Kisielewicz
> "Kornel Kisielewicz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote:
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>> Kornel Kisielewicz <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote:
>>>> A crossbow shot on a unarmoured man in the Middle Ages in the chest
>>>> was almost always lethal, and in the best case, you will have a
>>>> wound you will always remember.
>>>
>>> The argument from realism is still utterly bogus.
>>
>> That is?
>
> "Argument from realism" - saying that a feature is a good idea because
> it represents reality well. This is only true if it does so in an
> interesting and exciting manner that improves gameplay. For example,
> _Phoenix Command_ has extremely complex firearms rules that are
> doubtless very realistic. However, they're also as dull as distilled
> water.
Well in that case the whole disscussion is completely unnessesary:
For Chipacabra DnD = fun, GURPS = no fun
For Kornel DnD = no fun, GURPS = fun.:)
Nah, it was a stupid discussion anyway.
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
> "Kornel Kisielewicz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote in message
> news:<c8qlco$gjl$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net>...
>> Chipacabra wrote:
>>> "Kornel Kisielewicz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote in
>>> news:c8qbn9$ap4$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net:
>>
>> You keep talling me, that GURPS is fundamentaly broken, but you
>> haven't given me even _one_ example of that, even _one_ reason.
>
> I'll bite. GURPS great strength is also its great weakness. It seeks
> to enable a completely generic point based roleplaying system. This,
> however, has two possible outcomes:
>
> 1) If the players are the least bit powergame oriented, they will
> min/max to their hearts content. This means the slightest flaw in the
> point structure will be hideously exploited, ruining the game for all
> involved.
If the GM has at least a little authority he will never allow that. Moreover
that's the price for high flexibility.
> 2) If the players are "mature", ie: they want to design characters
> rather than the most powerful uber creatures possible, they will
> eschew such silliness and ignore flaws in the point structure to build
> the characters as they wish. In this case, however, the point
> structure becomes more and more irrelevant.
As I see it (and use it), the points are guidelines for both character
creation and NPC creation.
> GURPs would be better as a *role*playing system, in many ways, if they
> didn't provide *any* point values.
For me point values are good as a general overview of the strenghts and
weaknesses of a character and a suggestion on his power. An aid in designing
characters. They give an impression on how much powerful/debiliating a given
advantage/disadvantage is, or how hard/easy something is to learn. And even
if they know that the system can be abused, but the GM will not allow it,
players feel treated more fair if confronted with points. That's at least
how I see it.
My current Shadow group of players has a drastical variety of point
values -- I never counted the cost of their characters, but in the same
group one of the characters is about 120 points and the other somewhere
around 600 (as you may guess he's not human ;) ). GURPS doesn't make the
120pt character useless in this group (what would happen in a 3-rd
level/16th level character in one group in DnD)... and that's what I like
about the system.
> One would be expected to merely
> negotiate with the DM and determine valid characters. Of course, at
> this level of play, your exact game mechanism becomes more irrelevant.
At this level of play I prefer Amber DRPG ;)
> Now, as for GURPs as a *roll*playing system, we are talking about a
> different matter.
Yeah, I must agree here -- with all the rules GURPS is completely unsuited
for roll-playing. But in my opinion that's not what GURPS was intended for.
For *roll*playing we have d20 after all ;).
> them become mature. When they are mature, I'd argue the system does
> not matter, and they should just raid whatever systems attract their
> interest.
Would you imagine running a dark and full of depth game of Wraith in d20?
And in GURPS? Which one would be more convinient for you as a GM? (My answer
is Storyteller, so I'm not biased ;) ;).
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Glen Wheeler
But what about the second, quite interesting point Martin makes? I think
it is more interesting to see which system could be used as a basis for a
roguelike, than simply reading who likes what.
--
Glen
Chipacabra
>> 1) If the players are the least bit powergame oriented, they will
>> min/max to their hearts content. This means the slightest flaw in
>> the point structure will be hideously exploited, ruining the game for
>> all involved.
>
> If the GM has at least a little authority he will never allow that.
> Moreover that's the price for high flexibility.
If a game REQUIRES GM supervision just to make a character at all, it is
broken. Heck, I like point buy systems. I just think GURPS' is terrible.
Putting the main stats and the derived stats on the same point scale is
broken. It would be far better if you had separate point pools for stats,
for skills, and for advantages. But like I said, unlike D&D, no one is
fixing the blatant flaws in GURPS.
Per I Mathisen
> You do know that game mechanics aren't subject to copyright, right?
There is a lot more to D20 than just game mechanics.
--
Per I Mathisen
(reply by mail to per at leftist dot net - all mail to
dev...@leftist.net is junked)
Per I Mathisen
> The OGL and the D20 license are not the same thing. You can make a
> game using material from the SRD with no problem, so long as it does
> not say anything about being D20 or use any of the trademarks. If you
> use the OGL, you also have to make the rules readily available, in a
> readable format.
You may be right. The OGL is vague - intentionally so, I think.
However, WotC seem to have a slightly different view of it.
Read http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i at
least. Pay attention to "Compiling that information into a program
denies the user that access and violates the spirit of the Open Gaming
License."
I would not use the OGL with any computer game, personally.
David Damerell
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Kornel Kisielewicz <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote:
>>>never agree with me, blinded by WotC system. The point of view I
>>>presented here is shared by many people from the
>>>publishers/reporters branch of the RPG industry. If you think you're
>>>wiser then them, I won't argue anymore.
>>Suuure. And the lurkers support you in email, too, I bet.
>What's your point?
My point is that it's easy to proclaim that those "many people" agree with
you, especially when they're not around to say what they actually think.
In the domain of actual facts, it is interesting to notice that the 2000
Diana Jones award for excellence in gaming - awarded by a committee of
eleven games industry notables, including James Wallis then of Hogshead
publishing - went to Peter Adkinson, CEO of WoTC.
"Without Adkison's involvement, gaming today would be very different,
much smaller and much less interesting."
Guess _they_ don't think he killed the industry.
>>This is a bit of a straw man, since plenty of us have played numerous
>>other systems and different styles of play.
>Plenty != All.
So what? You cannot dismiss the other side as people who have played only
one system.
David Damerell
Permitting people to use their system, but not requiring it, is an unfair
monopolist practice? Damn. Presumably it would be fairer to charge lots of
money for the privilege.
David Damerell
> But what about the second, quite interesting point Martin makes? I think
>it is more interesting to see which system could be used as a basis for a
>roguelike, than simply reading who likes what.
Well, quite; and _typically_ roguelikes are basically skirmish wargames
with character advancement, and that's what d20 does well. They've put
enormous effort into formalising the whole tactical combat system
precisely for the benefit of computer games, and it's well worth a look.
David Damerell
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Kornel Kisielewicz <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote:
>>>It's not about the classes. It's about their existance. All
>>>serious-play RPG systems have dropped the idea of "class".
>>Wait, aren't you a fan of the White Wolf games?
>Rather not (with the notable exception of Wraith).
Well, that's something, at least.
>>Because the difference
>>between those "serious" systems and bad old D&D is that in a White
>>Wolf game your class comes with a rigid personality stereotype.
>... which is a role-playing aid, not and not a rule.
Nevertheless; your class in a WW game informs your abilities (like in D&D)
and also comes with a massive personality stereotype (unlike D&D, apart
from stuff like paladins). This is an improvement because?
They don't call 'em classes but they're classes all the same.
>>The only difference between being an nth level fighter and an nth
>>generation Malkavian is that every bloody Malkavian is interesting and
>>novel in exactly the same way.
>...when played by a munchkin.
Actually, no. I think the personality stereotypes are actively damaging;
they make things worse, not better.
>Honestly, the system of my choice is Amber DRPG.
I like Amber, but only for play in that universe. It's not something you
could use as a general-purpose system; and it certainly doesn't work for
the style of gaming that's partly skirmish wargaming (and, look here, that
is not a bad thing if you enjoy wargaming as well as RPGs).
>>>A crossbow shot on a unarmoured man in the Middle Ages in the chest
>>>was almost always lethal, and in the best case, you will have a
>>>wound you will always remember.
>>The argument from realism is still utterly bogus.
>That is?
Don't argue realism, argue playability. Imagine you have a James Bond game
with a realistic treatment of what happens when you run along 30 feet in
front of five men with submachine guns with nothing but a little railing
in the way. A Hong Kong action movie game with a realistic treatment of
gunfights. A medieval game with a realistic treatment of the likelihood
that your character will die of some random pointless disease. Where would
GearHead be with a realistic view of the relative effectiveness of tanks
and giant robots built with the same technology?
Critical Miss had a neat take on this; have people generate 150 point
GURPS characters, healthy British men in the early part of the 20th
century, take as long as they like; then give them some free weapon skills
and open the session as they go over the top at the Somme, and kill them
right away with withering machine-gun and shell fire. That was realistic,
proper gritty roleplaying like we are all meant to be doing; was it fun?
David Damerell
>broken. It would be far better if you had separate point pools for stats,
>for skills, and for advantages. But like I said, unlike D&D, no one is
>fixing the blatant flaws in GURPS.
GURPS 4e _is_ due out this year, you know...
ABCGi
> Chipacabra wrote:
>
>>The OGL and the D20 license are not the same thing. You can make a
>>game using material from the SRD with no problem, so long as it does
>>not say anything about being D20 or use any of the trademarks. If you
>>use the OGL, you also have to make the rules readily available, in a
>>readable format.
>
> You may be right. The OGL is vague - intentionally so, I think.
> However, WotC seem to have a slightly different view of it.
>
> Read http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i at
> least. Pay attention to "Compiling that information into a program
> denies the user that access and violates the spirit of the Open Gaming
> License."
>
> I would not use the OGL with any computer game, personally.
Lawyers are the dumbest freaks in the universe, ring me when they catch
up with the computer age!
<quote>
"Interactive Game": means a piece of software that is designed to accept
inputs from human players or their agents, and use rules to resolve the
success or failure of those inputs, and return some indication of the
results of those inputs to the users.
</quote>
--
ABCGi *** BEYOND H-WORLD *** http://abcgi.fly.to
http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk/projects/beyond/hworld
ABCGi
> Glen Wheeler <ge...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> But what about the second, quite interesting point Martin makes? I think
>>it is more interesting to see which system could be used as a basis for a
>>roguelike, than simply reading who likes what.
>
> Well, quite; and _typically_ roguelikes are basically skirmish wargames
> with character advancement, and that's what d20 does well. They've put
> enormous effort into formalising the whole tactical combat system
> precisely for the benefit of computer games, and it's well worth a look.
Can we make some improvements though on d20 and RL implementations
though? This is a list of things I have found in some RL's that I favour
not repeating in my game (the first two might be seen to be derived from
certain uses of d20 style rules);
RL "FEATURES" TO AVOID
* Hit point inflation and power leveling
* Over powerful monster classes to deal with said HP inflation
* Being able to rat pack too much
* Hiding game mechanics[1]
* Repetitive tasks (Sac, Search, Breeders, XP & item scumming)
* Poor key combos for repetitive tasks (like aim & shoot)
* Waiting around for health to regen
* Diablo arcade style healing/mana potions
* Noob unfriendly and/or expert annoying (learning keys made easy etc
but still quick for expert on keys only)
* Boring and/or linear sub-quests or quests
Am I missing many?
[1] I tend not to make the game mechanics more complex than a human
player can easily understand, I always liked the computer to take the
pain of rolling dice and knowing all the rules from me, but not to hide
the results.
Chipacabra
@orkan.itea.ntnu.no:
> You may be right. The OGL is vague - intentionally so, I think.
> However, WotC seem to have a slightly different view of it.
>
> Read http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i at
> least. Pay attention to "Compiling that information into a program
> denies the user that access and violates the spirit of the Open Gaming
> License."
That just means that you can't have your game mechanics reside only in
compiled code. They have to human readable.
Chipacabra
news:-1*tn...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
> Chipacabra <ch...@efn.org> wrote:
>>broken. It would be far better if you had separate point pools for
>>stats, for skills, and for advantages. But like I said, unlike D&D, no
>>one is fixing the blatant flaws in GURPS.
>
> GURPS 4e _is_ due out this year, you know...
I don't THINK it's got any major rulechanges, but I haven't checked in
quite a while.
Hmm. Looking at the FAQ it looks like it does fix quite a few things.
Doesn't look like attributes are divorced from skills in the pointbuy,
though. I'll probably check it out when it's released.
Kenny
> though? This is a list of things I have found in some RL's that I favour
> not repeating in my game (the first two might be seen to be derived from
> certain uses of d20 style rules);
>
> RL "FEATURES" TO AVOID
> * Hit point inflation and power leveling
> * Over powerful monster classes to deal with said HP inflation
> * Being able to rat pack too much
> * Hiding game mechanics[1]
> * Repetitive tasks (Sac, Search, Breeders, XP & item scumming)
> * Poor key combos for repetitive tasks (like aim & shoot)
> * Waiting around for health to regen
> * Diablo arcade style healing/mana potions
> * Noob unfriendly and/or expert annoying (learning keys made easy etc
> but still quick for expert on keys only)
> * Boring and/or linear sub-quests or quests
>
> Am I missing many?
>
Magic spells all come spellbooks ala D&D.
Elves and Dwarves come in flavours of Mtn, Hill, Grey, High, Smelly etc.
ABCGi
hehe yeah. So what is your preferred magic spell system? I recall the
Ultima recipe one with, well, musty fondness.
Ray Dillinger
> hehe yeah. So what is your preferred magic spell system? I recall the
> Ultima recipe one with, well, musty fondness.
Hmmm. A variety of spellcasters.... I'm just going to "riff" for a
few minutes about possible varieties of spellcasting, *OTHER* than
the classic "i have books with spells written in them" people that
we've seen too many of. I hope other people add to the thread.
There's already been a "design checklist", which you can view at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2l6qgvkvabm229vfqt5qqikjobrtpb357u%404ax.com
but that doesn't present combinations of choices that make sense in
terms of individual different types of magicians, which is what I
hope to see here.
==============================================================
RuneCasters: Runecasters carry around a pouch of runestones. When
they want to cast a spell, they pull out a particular combination
of runestones and put them in a particular order and invoke/power
them. Occasionally (maybe once in a hundred times) a randomly
selected runestone breaks in usage. So they're always happy to find
new Runestones in the set they know. Sometimes they find new
runestones that they don't know, and then they need to experiment
to find out what the new runestone does. But experimenting is
risky, because you never know what that new combination will do.
Most combinations do nothing. A runecaster can make copies of a
runestone in his posession from rocks if he has a chisel. With
some specialized lapidary type tools he can make copies of a runestone
from gems. A runestone that he's used more than a couple hundred
times, he can copy from memory. Runestones made from gems are
generally superior (higher power, less chance of breakage).
Runecasters can also "inscribe" runes on weapons, armor, etc,
in order to give them additional magical abilities. Runecasters
string runestone combinations together on a cord for rapid access
to common spells, but runestones so "tied up" can't be used for
other spells. For extra-crunchy goodness, you can have some kind
of internal logic to the runestones themselves. For example,
every valid combination could be <element><power><method><target>
where each different runestone has a particular meaning in each
context.
Deathwreakers: Deathwreakers have books, but the books are
not magical in themselves. They are mainly just a collection
of recipes. Every spell in the Deathwreaker arsenal requires
bits of corpses to cast. Thus, the "magic eye" that allows him
to see around corners, only works if he kills something and takes
its eyeball first. Maybe his enchanted eyeball will last for
several castings of the spell; maybe not. A death spell for a
particular species might require a noose to be made from the
hair of that species. A more powerful death spell (capable of
killing several of them) might require him to crush the heart
of a corpse. He probably has a spell that can deprive all
monsters in an area of their teeth, but it involves dropping
a tooth from that type of monster into a cup of blood. Some
of his most basic spells (like identify, light, etc) require him
to do himself a small amount of damage (open a vein and bleed a
little bit, use the blood to power the spell...). The deathwreaker
must have a knives/daggers weapon proficiency, in addition to his
spell-casting. Deathwreakers do not in general have limits on
the number of spells they can cast daily, in terms of mana or
etc. They are limited by the number and kind of corpse bits
they can gather or the amount of blood loss they can take.
There are lots of opportunities for extra-crunchy goodness here
in spells where the species the part comes from can vary.
For example, the aforementioned enchanted "magic eye" could
be an attack spell if it were cast using a basilisk's eye....
Chaos workers: Chaos workers work with the raw stuff of which
universes are made. Theirs is the fundamental magic on which
all others are based. Their spells are mostly very simple, but
extremely powerful. For example, it is easier for a chaos
worker to annihilate a wall than see through it. No form of
antimagic other than that cast by another chaos worker can touch
a chaos worker's spells. They can penetrate (or cast from inside)
antimagic shells and no-teleport zones set up by some other type
of magic, effortlessly. They do not seek written spells, nor
write down spells; it's pointless, since the material they're
working with is different every time. Instead, they have general
proficiencies in broad categories such as "manifestations" and
"conjurations" and so on, and based on these proficiencies,
their intelligence, and their raw willpower, they have some
chance of succeeding at any spell they can imagine. A chaos
worker has access to every spell that exists, right from the
start of the game. Of course, there's a down side to all of
this. First, they have to prefer the simple spells because
their success is vastly more likely. Second, the consequences
of failure, while usually insignificant, can be a real problem.
Corruption, mutilation, disease, death, self-polymorph of the
nasty kind, writhing masses of uncontrolled primal chaos that
spit up hundreds of dangerous monsters before burning out, the
negative attention of powerful beings, very real risk of tearing
"holes" in the universe through which horrific ancient things
which lie in wait can enter, etc, are all possibilities. And
third, since chaos workers aren't tapping into the flows of
magic the way other magicians are, but instead are themselves
the primary sources of that flow, all that power has to come
from somewhere. They pay double mana for every spell, whether
successful or not, and recovering mana costs them hunger. A
powerful chaos worker might have to eat his own weight in food
every day if he's casting a lot of spells, and incurs a net
loss in energy for casting spells like "create food" and then
eating the food. On the other hand, if he kills a horse or a
rhinoceros, he can eat it all before it spoils.
Others?
Kornel Kisielewicz
Lowering prices too much is also a monopolist practice, and it's bad even
when it conforts the client in the near scope of time. Not every
"altruistic" act is good in the long term, you know... take a economics
class ;).
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
> "Kornel Kisielewicz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote in message
> news:c8tmdo$2953$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net...
>> Well in that case the whole disscussion is completely unnessesary:
>> For Chipacabra DnD = fun, GURPS = no fun
>> For Kornel DnD = no fun, GURPS = fun.:)
>>
>> Nah, it was a stupid discussion anyway.
>
> But what about the second, quite interesting point Martin makes? I
> think it is more interesting to see which system could be used as a
> basis for a roguelike, than simply reading who likes what.
I use a system based on the ideology of GURPS, and it works realy well.
That's my humble opinion...
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
> David Damerell wrote:
>
>> Glen Wheeler <ge...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> * Waiting around for health to regen
> * Diablo arcade style healing/mana potions
These too are quite hard to avoid at the same time. Either you allow the
player to regenerate their hitpoint or you allow them to use some kind of
item to do that. A third option (maybe better) is allowing to heal only in
specified places (Inns, taverns, hospitals etc..). The way Shadow/GenRogue
handles is uses a bit the third method, but I avoid the problem manly due to
the lethalness of the game. It's harder to get hit and damaged in GR. But
when you are, you'll going to have a biiig problem....
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
> Kornel Kisielewicz <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote:
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>> Kornel Kisielewicz <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote:
>>>> It's not about the classes. It's about their existance. All
>>>> serious-play RPG systems have dropped the idea of "class".
>>> Wait, aren't you a fan of the White Wolf games?
>> Rather not (with the notable exception of Wraith).
>
> Well, that's something, at least.
Wraith has a few brilliant rules unique even to the Storyteller system (for
example ShadowGuides). And I play it almost diceless anyway.
>>> Because the difference
>>> between those "serious" systems and bad old D&D is that in a White
>>> Wolf game your class comes with a rigid personality stereotype.
>> ... which is a role-playing aid, not and not a rule.
>
> Nevertheless; your class in a WW game informs your abilities (like in
> D&D) and also comes with a massive personality stereotype (unlike
> D&D, apart from stuff like paladins). This is an improvement because?
You seem not to understand personality stereotypes. They're just a
_guideline_ not a rule (as classes are).
>>> The only difference between being an nth level fighter and an nth
>>> generation Malkavian is that every bloody Malkavian is interesting
>>> and novel in exactly the same way.
>> ...when played by a munchkin.
>
> Actually, no. I think the personality stereotypes are actively
> damaging; they make things worse, not better.
Actually it's hard to comment on that in my case - I never told any player
to fill that field, and don't remember anyone doing this. Players ususaly
give me a 4-5 sheet personality summary, so why the hell should I care about
stereotypes??? They're just a guideline for beginning roleplayers.
>> Honestly, the system of my choice is Amber DRPG.
>
> I like Amber, but only for play in that universe. It's not something
> you could use as a general-purpose system;
I did it with shadows a few times and it worked realy well ;)
> and it certainly doesn't
> work for the style of gaming that's partly skirmish wargaming (and,
> look here, that is not a bad thing if you enjoy wargaming as well as
> RPGs).
Yeah, I can agree with that. Still I detest it because rule-driven games
like DnD take make lot of possibilities for the Gamemaster to cheat harder.
>>>> A crossbow shot on a unarmoured man in the Middle Ages in the chest
>>>> was almost always lethal, and in the best case, you will have a
>>>> wound you will always remember.
>>> The argument from realism is still utterly bogus.
>> That is?
> Don't argue realism, argue playability. Imagine you have a James Bond
> game with a realistic treatment of what happens when you run along 30
> feet in front of five men with submachine guns with nothing but a
> little railing in the way. A Hong Kong action movie game with a
> realistic treatment of gunfights.
Those are cinematic ;).
> A medieval game with a realistic
> treatment of the likelihood that your character will die of some
> random pointless disease.
Bad example. I had a player die from leprosy. It was a realy challenging
game session because of the setting though. I like random diseases ;).
> Where would GearHead be with a realistic
> view of the relative effectiveness of tanks and giant robots built
> with the same technology?
This one is cinematic ;).
> Critical Miss had a neat take on this; have people generate 150 point
> GURPS characters, healthy British men in the early part of the 20th
> century,
[beep!] A healty British man in the early part of the 20th century would be
at most 35 points! Read the chargen chapter of GURPS carefully. The
standard point value of 100pts is already considered "hero" which is a lot
above a real game. I played a few sessions of GURPS with 25 point
characters -- theay realy seem real, and contrary to popular belief *can* be
realy entertaining (investigators for GURPS chtuilish games should be about
25-50 for example...)
> skills and open the session as they go over the top at the Somme, and
> kill them right away with withering machine-gun and shell fire. That
> was realistic, proper gritty roleplaying like we are all meant to be
> doing; was it fun?
Poor GM I'd say,
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Kornel Kisielewicz
> "Kornel Kisielewicz" <charon...@magma-net.pl> wrote in
> news:c8uad3$2jhb$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net:
>
>
>>> 1) If the players are the least bit powergame oriented, they will
>>> min/max to their hearts content. This means the slightest flaw in
>>> the point structure will be hideously exploited, ruining the game
>>> for all involved.
>>
>> If the GM has at least a little authority he will never allow that.
>> Moreover that's the price for high flexibility.
>
> If a game REQUIRES GM supervision just to make a character at all, it
> is broken.
Interesting opinion. That way Amber DRPG is fundamentaly broken right from
the first page :).
> Heck, I like point buy systems. I just think GURPS' is
> terrible.
So show me one that's not terrible and offers such a magnitude of cholices.
(ever seen GURPS GULLIVER system (it's a system, not a worldbook)?)
> Putting the main stats and the derived stats on the same
> point scale is broken. It would be far better if you had separate
> point pools for stats, for skills, and for advantages.
Why?
If that would be the case, then you couldn't create a lot of memorable
characters -- like a very strong barbarian, with no skills (primitive), and
no special powers. Or a powerfull mage hit by amnesia in effect of a magical
backlash -- raw uncontrollable power), or a weak and stupid guy, who's a
master of handcraft and jewelry), or a crippled guy on a wheelchair with
psionic powers. Or actually you couldn't create any character that isn't
average -- all the party would have special powers, equal skills, and equal
abilities. Boring as hell.
> said, unlike D&D, no one is fixing the blatant flaws in GURPS.
Ever heard of GURPS GULLIVER? It's a mod for all you muchkin-point players.
And there's GURPS 4th comming, of course... Although I don't see any flaws
that should be fixed.
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
Chipacabra
> Interesting opinion. That way Amber DRPG is fundamentaly broken right
> from the first page :).
Amber is meant to be broken. You're playing as, essentially, demigods.
> So show me one that's not terrible and offers such a magnitude of
> cholices. (ever seen GURPS GULLIVER system (it's a system, not a
> worldbook)?)
World Tree, frex, uses three purchase systems in character creation. For
the main stats, you first apply your racial template, then arrange a
standard array of modifiers however you want, then you may, if you
choose, roll for any or all of your abilities for a tiny adjustment. For
skills, you get a certain number of batches of points to be distributed
among the skill groups, and from there to the individual skills. Then you
get a number of points to spend on advantages and disadvantages, some of
which are able to have a tiny effect on your abilities or a moderate
effect on skills.
Games of different levels are made by adjusting any of: The starting
ability array, the starting number of skill blocks, or the starting
number of advantage points.
> Why?
> If that would be the case, then you couldn't create a lot of memorable
> characters -- like a very strong barbarian, with no skills
> (primitive), and no special powers.
Uh, easily. All his ability points go into ST, all his skills points go
into club and dodge.
> Or a powerfull mage hit by amnesia
> in effect of a magical backlash -- raw uncontrollable power),
His ability points go in IQ, his skills points go in spells, and he gets
special disads.
> or a
> weak and stupid guy, who's a master of handcraft and jewelry),
NPC.
> or a
> crippled guy on a wheelchair with psionic powers.
IQ, skill points go in psionic powers, disad goes to crippled.
> Or actually you
> couldn't create any character that isn't average -- all the party
> would have special powers, equal skills, and equal abilities. Boring
> as hell.
What an astounding lack of creativity.
Although GURPS does need more attributes. The ones they have are
overloaded. It's hard to claim they're not, when even the main rulebooks
talk about the problem and cludges to try and fix them. IQ is in charge
of too much, while ST and HT are in charge of too little. More attributes
would encourage better diversity, and considering the fiddliness of some
of the rules already, the added complexity shouldn't be a problem.
ABCGi
Beyond H-World will allow the PC to camp in randomly generated 'camps'.
The Diablo arcade style refers to the healing and mana potions being a
part of your health, where you just have to be quick enough and have
enough storage and have bought enough healing potions to live longer.
There is certainly some middle ground between the two that is better.
Having a 'R'est command is a start.
oo...@oooooooooo.ooo
System shock 2 (which despite being first-person and strongly
plot-oriented has a "roguelike feel") had medical hypos which healed
your hit points gradually. You couldn't enter a firefight and just use
some medication when you ran low on HP, you had to break out of the
fight and find a quiet place to wait until the hypo had its full effect.
This had a really huge impact on gameplay, first thing you'd do upon
entering a level was securing an area and set up a base camp. It
enhanced the sci-fi survival horror theme a lot (and boy was I scared
when playing at night...)
There were also special medical rooms where you could get full healing
instantly, but they were so scarce you couldn't rely on finding them.
All in all a great game you should study if you want to see what a
"somewhat realistic sci fi survival game" could feel like.
--
caffeine (at) tuxfamily :: org
The Sheep
> ABCGi wrote:
> They do not seek written spells, nor
> write down spells; it's pointless, since the material they're
> working with is different every time. Instead, they have general
> proficiencies in broad categories such as "manifestations" and
> "conjurations" and so on, and based on these proficiencies,
> their intelligence, and their raw willpower, they have some
> chance of succeeding at any spell they can imagine.
Just wondering what would the interface to it look like... ^-))
--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski
Meep! Meep! Zooom!
ABCGi
Yeah I've got it, it's on my top 100 games list. They really put some
good thought into that game.
David Damerell
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Permitting people to use their system, but not requiring it, is an
>>unfair monopolist practice? Damn. Presumably it would be fairer to
>>charge lots of money for the privilege.
>Lowering prices too much is also a monopolist practice,
However, in this case they clearly are not making a temporary loss in
order to drive their competitors out of business.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?