d20 without character levels?

[shoggoth]

Is d20 without levels possible?

We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
level-less d20 would it still be d20?

Suppose I adjusted it to have higher amounts of XPs for the
level advancement (exponential scale like 1e) and gave only half
a hit die per level - would that be d20?

Is d20 just the core mechanic for handling conflicts, skills and
feats, etc OR does d20 also include the rules for generating
characters and character development?

In advance to all those out there who are going to tell me to
use something else - apart from d20 - I already know of 1000
such rule systems but..., The first thing people say to me when
I try to recruit them is "Is it D&D", the second thing they say
is "I haven't time to learn yet another rule system". I went to
the trouble of writing my background for Tri-Stat - but couldn't
find any takers. When I said it was "like BESM" - that just made
things worse - they thought I wanted them to play an Anime
character. I'm thinking that if I have rules based on d20 - I
will be able to say to them "Yes - it's very like D&D" (lying
through my teeth, because the only resemblance to D&D will be
the core mechanic).

[Matt Pillsbury]

Post by shoggoth
Is d20 without levels possible?
We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
level-less d20 would it still be d20?

According to the technical definition of "d20", yes, it would, though
I suspect that a lot of people who find "d20" a selling point wouldn't
be interested in it.

Post by shoggoth
Suppose I adjusted it to have higher amounts of XPs for the
level advancement (exponential scale like 1e) and gave only half
a hit die per level - would that be d20?

Absolutely. The exponential scale is one of the variants in
/Unearthed Arcana/, and re-jiggering the damage mechanic is one of
the most common things that d20 games change from D&D.
[...]

Post by shoggoth
I'm thinking that if I have rules based on d20 - I will be able to
say to them "Yes - it's very like D&D" (lying through my teeth,
because the only resemblance to D&D will be the core mechanic).

Well, I'd be pretty irritated to learn that a GM had lied to me when
he pitched the game.

[shoggoth]

Post by Matt Pillsbury

Post by shoggoth
Is d20 without levels possible?
We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
level-less d20 would it still be d20?

According to the technical definition of "d20", yes, it would, though
I suspect that a lot of people who find "d20" a selling point wouldn't
be interested in it.

Post by shoggoth
Suppose I adjusted it to have higher amounts of XPs for the
level advancement (exponential scale like 1e) and gave only half
a hit die per level - would that be d20?

Absolutely. The exponential scale is one of the variants in
/Unearthed Arcana/, and re-jiggering the damage mechanic is one of
the most common things that d20 games change from D&D.
[...]

Post by shoggoth
I'm thinking that if I have rules based on d20 - I will be able to
say to them "Yes - it's very like D&D" (lying through my teeth,
because the only resemblance to D&D will be the core mechanic).

Well, I'd be pretty irritated to learn that a GM had lied to me when
he pitched the game.

So you leave after the first week, so what? I'm sure some
players will leave after the first week - there's always some
who never really had the time and others who take offence too
easily. At least there'll be a game to leave this way - rather
than no game at all.

I would actually say - "It's like D&D - it's fantasy and it uses
the same core mechanic - but you just can't use the D&D classes,
races, alignment, etc." [Nothing from D&D actually, not even the
fecking monsters]. We'll see how it goes shall we? I was always
ready to play any new game any week.

What potential players want to know is 'will I understand the
rules'. I'll offer them edited versions of the d20 system
reference documents. They can have nearly the full rules if they
want - the same ones I use. [But no - they can't have the
monster rules too and can't see the magic rules unless their
character is a mage.]

[Jasin Zujovic]

Post by shoggoth

Post by Matt Pillsbury

Post by shoggoth
I'm thinking that if I have rules based on d20 - I will be able to
say to them "Yes - it's very like D&D" (lying through my teeth,
because the only resemblance to D&D will be the core mechanic).

Well, I'd be pretty irritated to learn that a GM had lied to me when
he pitched the game.

So you leave after the first week, so what? I'm sure some
players will leave after the first week - there's always some
who never really had the time and others who take offence too
easily. At least there'll be a game to leave this way - rather
than no game at all.
I would actually say - "It's like D&D - it's fantasy and it uses
the same core mechanic - but you just can't use the D&D classes,
races, alignment, etc." [Nothing from D&D actually, not even the
fecking monsters].

What's the point of that?

Why not rather say "it's like [something that it's like]" instead saying
it's like D&D, which it is utterly unlike?

Post by shoggoth
We'll see how it goes shall we? I was always
ready to play any new game any week.
What potential players want to know is 'will I understand the
rules'. I'll offer them edited versions of the d20 system
reference documents. They can have nearly the full rules if they
want - the same ones I use. [But no - they can't have the
monster rules too and can't see the magic rules unless their
character is a mage.]

Can they have the crafting rules even if the character is not a
craftsman?

Can they have the fighting rules rules even if the character is not a
fighter?

Can they have the jumping rules even if the character is not a jumper?

[shoggoth]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:16:19 +0100, Jasin Zujovic

Post by Jasin Zujovic

Post by shoggoth

Post by Matt Pillsbury

Post by shoggoth
I'm thinking that if I have rules based on d20 - I will be able to
say to them "Yes - it's very like D&D" (lying through my teeth,
because the only resemblance to D&D will be the core mechanic).

Well, I'd be pretty irritated to learn that a GM had lied to me when
he pitched the game.

So you leave after the first week, so what? I'm sure some
players will leave after the first week - there's always some
who never really had the time and others who take offence too
easily. At least there'll be a game to leave this way - rather
than no game at all.
I would actually say - "It's like D&D - it's fantasy and it uses
the same core mechanic - but you just can't use the D&D classes,
races, alignment, etc." [Nothing from D&D actually, not even the
fecking monsters].

What's the point of that?
Why not rather say "it's like [something that it's like]" instead saying
it's like D&D, which it is utterly unlike?

A good point. I enquire after players. Some players say they are
looking for a game of D&D and others say they'd "play if it was
D&D". I ask "why D&D". They reply: "because we know D&D rules".

I would, of course, describe it as d20 fantasy, and elaborate
that it uses the same core mechanic as D&D. That's what I mean
by "like D&D" - like the mechanics. I would also tell them what
the differences were.

If potential players told me that they only wanted to play D&D
because they only want to play that kind of background world (as
per the PH, DMG and commercial modules) then I wouldn't bother
enticing them - I'd send them packing. But if they say I: "want
to play a game in which I don't need to learn a whole new set of
rules". That's different. It's this second type of person who
I've encountered more than once. These are the people I want and
there are at least 3 of them.

That's the point. To get a game without having to travel over 20
miles to find one.

Post by Jasin Zujovic

Post by shoggoth
We'll see how it goes shall we? I was always
ready to play any new game any week.
What potential players want to know is 'will I understand the
rules'. I'll offer them edited versions of the d20 system
reference documents. They can have nearly the full rules if they
want - the same ones I use. [But no - they can't have the
monster rules too and can't see the magic rules unless their
character is a mage.]

Can they have the crafting rules even if the character is not a
craftsman?

Yes. For crafting non-magical items.

But there are no Feats allowed for crafting magic items -
available to sorcerers below, say 10th level because the Temples
won't allow such spells to be learnt by such low-level types.

Post by Jasin Zujovic
Can they have the fighting rules rules even if the character is not a
fighter?

Of course.

Post by Jasin Zujovic
Can they have the jumping rules even if the character is not a jumper?

They can have all these mundane rules.

They don't get to have the special rules, which are basically
rules for monster stats and magic stats. They can have some
verbal and even written descriptions of the effects of spells
and reports from people who previously encountered monsters -
just as characters would get in any world.

If they manage to learn a particular spell then the spell-caster
only can have the rules for the spell thus learnt.

[Nockermensch]

Post by shoggoth
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:16:19 +0100, Jasin Zujovic

Post by Jasin Zujovic

Post by shoggoth
What potential players want to know is 'will I understand the
rules'. I'll offer them edited versions of the d20 system
reference documents. They can have nearly the full rules if they
want - the same ones I use. [But no - they can't have the
monster rules too and can't see the magic rules unless their
character is a mage.]

Can they have the crafting rules even if the character is not a
craftsman?

Yes. For crafting non-magical items.
But there are no Feats allowed for crafting magic items -
available to sorcerers below, say 10th level because the Temples
won't allow such spells to be learnt by such low-level types.

Interesting.

Post by shoggoth

Post by Jasin Zujovic
Can they have the fighting rules rules even if the character is not a
fighter?

Of course.

Post by Jasin Zujovic
Can they have the jumping rules even if the character is not a jumper?

They can have all these mundane rules.
They don't get to have the special rules, which are basically
rules for monster stats and magic stats. They can have some
verbal and even written descriptions of the effects of spells
and reports from people who previously encountered monsters -
just as characters would get in any world.
If they manage to learn a particular spell then the spell-caster
only can have the rules for the spell thus learnt.

And if this spellcaster then explain the rules of that spell to his
friends? And if these friends do the same to their friends? And if the
world, with spellcasters, their friends and the friends of their
friends is going this way for some time? Do you realize that there's a
good basis for those verbal and even written descriptions being
actually effective?

[shoggoth]

On 24 Nov 2004 07:50:55 -0800, "Nockermensch"

Post by Nockermensch

Post by shoggoth
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:16:19 +0100, Jasin Zujovic

Post by Jasin Zujovic

Post by shoggoth
What potential players want to know is 'will I understand the
rules'. I'll offer them edited versions of the d20 system
reference documents. They can have nearly the full rules if they
want - the same ones I use. [But no - they can't have the
monster rules too and can't see the magic rules unless their
character is a mage.]

Can they have the crafting rules even if the character is not a
craftsman?

Yes. For crafting non-magical items.
But there are no Feats allowed for crafting magic items -
available to sorcerers below, say 10th level because the Temples
won't allow such spells to be learnt by such low-level types.

Interesting.

Post by shoggoth

Post by Jasin Zujovic
Can they have the fighting rules rules even if the character is not

a

Post by shoggoth

Post by Jasin Zujovic
fighter?

Of course.

Post by Jasin Zujovic
Can they have the jumping rules even if the character is not a

jumper?

Post by shoggoth
They can have all these mundane rules.
They don't get to have the special rules, which are basically
rules for monster stats and magic stats. They can have some
verbal and even written descriptions of the effects of spells
and reports from people who previously encountered monsters -
just as characters would get in any world.
If they manage to learn a particular spell then the spell-caster
only can have the rules for the spell thus learnt.

And if this spellcaster then explain the rules of that spell to his
friends? And if these friends do the same to their friends? And if the
world, with spellcasters, their friends and the friends of their
friends is going this way for some time? Do you realize that there's a
good basis for those verbal and even written descriptions being
actually effective?

The Temples with the complete backing of the state will hunt
them down like dogs and kill them. Such independent (of the
Temples) spells exist but must be kept totally secret and
spell-casters can't just teach those spells to anyone - only to
their dearest friends and closest relatives - just so long as
they keep the secret too.

There are also high higher ability score restrictions needed to
do magic - so most people aren't going to be able to benefit
from spells you try to teach them because they won't have the
high abilities. At the same time, those people are then a
liability because they can always turn you over to the temple
for offering to teach them magic without authorization. So magic
learnt outside the temples is extremely rare.

[Nockermensch]

Post by shoggoth
On 24 Nov 2004 07:50:55 -0800, "Nockermensch"

Post by Nockermensch
And if this spellcaster then explain the rules of that spell to his
friends? And if these friends do the same to their friends? And if the
world, with spellcasters, their friends and the friends of their
friends is going this way for some time? Do you realize that there's a
good basis for those verbal and even written descriptions being
actually effective?

The Temples with the complete backing of the state will hunt
them down like dogs and kill them. Such independent (of the
Temples) spells exist but must be kept totally secret and
spell-casters can't just teach those spells to anyone - only to
their dearest friends and closest relatives - just so long as
they keep the secret too.

I'm talking about descriptions of spells, not spells. There's a
difference.

Post by shoggoth
There are also high higher ability score restrictions needed to
do magic - so most people aren't going to be able to benefit
from spells you try to teach them because they won't have the
high abilities. At the same time, those people are then a
liability because they can always turn you over to the temple
for offering to teach them magic without authorization. So magic
learnt outside the temples is extremely rare.

The important thing here is not to teach others how to DO magic, but
WHAT magic does. I don't know how to make explosives, but I know the
smell of powder and I know what powder does when it burns in an
enclosed space.

For instance, suppose that in your world there's D&D's Charm Person. If
people talk about magic then even an informed non-spellcaster could
suspect that somebody is charmed if he sees a sudden and unexplained
change of behavior. If Levitate and Spider Climb are known to exist,
then guards will also look up when patroling their posts.

[shoggoth]

On 29 Nov 2004 06:07:35 -0800, "Nockermensch"

Post by Nockermensch

Post by shoggoth
On 24 Nov 2004 07:50:55 -0800, "Nockermensch"

Post by Nockermensch
And if this spellcaster then explain the rules of that spell to his
friends? And if these friends do the same to their friends? And if

the

Post by shoggoth

Post by Nockermensch
world, with spellcasters, their friends and the friends of their
friends is going this way for some time? Do you realize that there's

a

Post by shoggoth

Post by Nockermensch
good basis for those verbal and even written descriptions being
actually effective?

The Temples with the complete backing of the state will hunt
them down like dogs and kill them. Such independent (of the
Temples) spells exist but must be kept totally secret and
spell-casters can't just teach those spells to anyone - only to
their dearest friends and closest relatives - just so long as
they keep the secret too.

I'm talking about descriptions of spells, not spells. There's a
difference.

Post by shoggoth
There are also high higher ability score restrictions needed to
do magic - so most people aren't going to be able to benefit
from spells you try to teach them because they won't have the
high abilities. At the same time, those people are then a
liability because they can always turn you over to the temple
for offering to teach them magic without authorization. So magic
learnt outside the temples is extremely rare.

The important thing here is not to teach others how to DO magic, but
WHAT magic does. I don't know how to make explosives, but I know the
smell of powder and I know what powder does when it burns in an
enclosed space.
For instance, suppose that in your world there's D&D's Charm Person. If
people talk about magic then even an informed non-spellcaster could
suspect that somebody is charmed if he sees a sudden and unexplained
change of behavior. If Levitate and Spider Climb are known to exist,
then guards will also look up when patroling their posts.

Knowing that someone is casting a spell on you is normally easy
enough to detect - they usually use incantations and hand
gestures. Stopping them doing it is not so easy. I imagine
knowledge of what magic does is quite common, at least among the
more educated. Magic is no kind of secret weapon in this world -
it's just restricted - a bit like handguns in Japan.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Oh no! It's shoggoth!

Post by shoggoth
Knowing that someone is casting a spell on you is normally easy
enough to detect - they usually use incantations and hand
gestures. Stopping them doing it is not so easy. I imagine
knowledge of what magic does is quite common, at least among the
more educated. Magic is no kind of secret weapon in this world -
it's just restricted - a bit like handguns in Japan.

Sounds reasonable; it's no coincidence that this is precisely what
people have been trying to persuade you of. The point is, you don't seem
to understand that this blows your whole rationale for not letting
players see the magic rules right out of the water.

[shoggoth]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:55:56 GMT, Jeff Heikkinen

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Oh no! It's shoggoth!

Post by shoggoth
Knowing that someone is casting a spell on you is normally easy
enough to detect - they usually use incantations and hand
gestures. Stopping them doing it is not so easy. I imagine
knowledge of what magic does is quite common, at least among the
more educated. Magic is no kind of secret weapon in this world -
it's just restricted - a bit like handguns in Japan.

Sounds reasonable; it's no coincidence that this is precisely what
people have been trying to persuade you of. The point is, you don't seem
to understand that this blows your whole rationale for not letting
players see the magic rules right out of the water.

I have no problem with letting players see the magic rules apart
from the fact that those rules aren't written down as D&D rules
and I'm not wasting my time to convert them untill I actually
need a spell in an actual game of D&D.

If people want to know what's available they can read the
non-D&D rules and try to project or extrapolate them to D&D.

There's a pragmatic reason for not showing them those non-D&D
rules - it'll just confuse them.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by shoggoth
I have no problem with letting players see the magic rules apart
from the fact that those rules aren't written down as D&D rules
and I'm not wasting my time to convert them untill I actually
need a spell in an actual game of D&D.

It's going to make intelligent PC behavior awfully difficult.

"So, we're going in to the castle. Are they likely to have
anti-invisibility measures? *Are* there anti-invisibility
measures? Are there any that someone like our foe could
possibly afford?"

"Dunno--I'm not even sure if invisibility exists."

Better make the starting PCs people who are very ignorant.
Backwoods hicks like Luke Skywalker might be a good choice.
The players are unlikely to be able to do a good job with
anyone world-wise.

My other word of warning would be that you'll need those
spells long before any PC has them, if you're going to
deal adequately with NPCs. Every time I have gone into a
game (as GM) with inadequately developed spell rules, I've
been sorry before long, because it makes the question
"What can the NPCs do in response to PC action X?" very
difficult to answer.

You can duck this if you don't have that sort of NPC, but
if you're aiming for deeply immersive play it's pretty
essential to have NPCs who behave like smart and capable
people (at least, those who *are* smart and capable people)
and that's nearly impossible to get unless you know what
they can do.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[shoggoth]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:22:58 +0000 (UTC),

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by shoggoth
I have no problem with letting players see the magic rules apart
from the fact that those rules aren't written down as D&D rules
and I'm not wasting my time to convert them untill I actually
need a spell in an actual game of D&D.

It's going to make intelligent PC behavior awfully difficult.
"So, we're going in to the castle. Are they likely to have
anti-invisibility measures? *Are* there anti-invisibility
measures? Are there any that someone like our foe could
possibly afford?"

A sensible spell-caster would enquire with a priest at his
temple beforehand and the response from that Priest wouldn't be
"Dunno--I'm not even sure if invisibility exists."

I already said that the spells are written down in terms of
ANOTHER set of rules and that I won't be inventing any new
spells. The availability of magic is well-defined within both
the game-world and the pre-D&D rules.

Most of the people here seem overly obsessed with rules. My
preference w.r.t. rules is for free-form and for well-defined
form w.r.t. the game world. It's more important to me to write
crib-sheets for the players explaining this or that aspect of
the game world to them (than it is to write game-mechanics which
are not likely to get used anytime soon). What are the political
power blocks?, who's on the up and up?, which hand should one
use for eating in public?, how low should one bow when
addressing the Hierophant of the Temple, etc.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
"Dunno--I'm not even sure if invisibility exists."
Better make the starting PCs people who are very ignorant.
Backwoods hicks like Luke Skywalker might be a good choice.
The players are unlikely to be able to do a good job with
anyone world-wise.

The reason why the starting PCs in this game are ignorant is
because a lot of the players are ignorant of the world. I have
no objection to them rolling another character after/if their
1st one falls by the wayside. But I'd actually like them to read
and apply as much background information as they're able to.
What higher level spells do is pretty peripheral.

They start off at 1st level and that I don't need to bother with
the higher level spells unless they'll be in use during the game
- which is unlikely for the first few months.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
My other word of warning would be that you'll need those
spells long before any PC has them, if you're going to
deal adequately with NPCs. Every time I have gone into a
game (as GM) with inadequately developed spell rules, I've
been sorry before long, because it makes the question
"What can the NPCs do in response to PC action X?" very
difficult to answer.
You can duck this if you don't have that sort of NPC, but
if you're aiming for deeply immersive play it's pretty
essential to have NPCs who behave like smart and capable
people (at least, those who *are* smart and capable people)
and that's nearly impossible to get unless you know what
they can do.

[Nockermensch]

Post by shoggoth
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:55:56 GMT, Jeff Heikkinen

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Oh no! It's shoggoth!

Post by shoggoth
Knowing that someone is casting a spell on you is normally easy
enough to detect - they usually use incantations and hand
gestures. Stopping them doing it is not so easy. I imagine
knowledge of what magic does is quite common, at least among the
more educated. Magic is no kind of secret weapon in this world -
it's just restricted - a bit like handguns in Japan.

Sounds reasonable; it's no coincidence that this is precisely what
people have been trying to persuade you of. The point is, you don't seem
to understand that this blows your whole rationale for not letting
players see the magic rules right out of the water.

I have no problem with letting players see the magic rules apart
from the fact that those rules aren't written down as D&D rules
and I'm not wasting my time to convert them untill I actually
need a spell in an actual game of D&D.
If people want to know what's available they can read the
non-D&D rules and try to project or extrapolate them to D&D.
There's a pragmatic reason for not showing them those non-D&D
rules - it'll just confuse them.

By the way you talk about your non-D&D magic system, it seems you have
a pretty good idea of how it's supposed to work, but don't have the
patience/time to put it on paper in an systematic fashion. If it's
this, then don't worry: it should be alright if you simply let them
read the non-D&D rules and extrapolate. Let them know that you'll
clarify their doubts and concerns and then be prepared to answer
honestly questions about what magicians/educated people/common people
should know about magic. For instance, as a prospective player
considering to play in your game, I could ask things like these:

How spellcasters cast magic? By rituals, filled with chanting and
sacrifices? By closing their eyes and meditating? By uttering a few
quick words and making precise gestures?

Is magic divided in spells like in D&D? Or is it something flexible
like in Ars Magica?

Is magic previsible like in D&D? Or is it a capricious force that can
backlash if the caster makes some mistake? If the later, what are the
expected consequences of messing with a spell?

How many years does it take for someone to become a spellcaster? What
kind of training is needed? How a stereotypical spellcaster would look
in your world? A frail scholar? A wily snake oil seller? An ascetic
monk?

What kinds of things the common people believe magic can do? Is there
something widely known that magic CAN'T do? Does magic have some known
weakness (it doesn't affect cold iron, doesn't work in holy days, etc)

Notice that one of the honest answers is "hey, I hadn't thought about
this or that yet", but if you answer this too much, it's a sign the
system isn't so clear in your had as you had thought and you're better
to organize your thoughts.

Also notice that mature players will play your game whatever your
answers are, as long as your world seems interesting. Just be honest,
because mature players also hate to be misled.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by shoggoth
The Temples with the complete backing of the state will hunt
them down like dogs and kill them. Such independent (of the
Temples) spells exist but must be kept totally secret and
spell-casters can't just teach those spells to anyone - only to
their dearest friends and closest relatives - just so long as
they keep the secret too.

Well, actually he was talking about teaching the RULES of the spell,
not the methods of the spell itself.

However, the Temples' approach to controlling magic will work:

a) Only as long as the spells in question aren't sufficient to
reverse the balance of power. ("Lina Inverse, we of the Temples insist
you surrender for your execution!" "So you're saying you WANT to see
me cast the Giga Slave again, with YOU as the focus?")

b) Only as long as there is no other power that doesn't LIKE the
Temples for some reason, and therefore will aid rogue mages. ("We of
the Temples command your execution, rogue!" "Fine, discuss it with my
patron, the God of Magic. He likes the idea of free exchange of ideas.")

[w***@yahoo.com]

Oh, a faith-based police state. Isn't that a little too, um, realistic?


Will in New Haven

--

"The need for Government is the need for force; where force is
unnecessary, there is no need for Government." Rose Wilder Lane

[drow]

Post by shoggoth
I would, of course, describe it as d20 fantasy, and elaborate
that it uses the same core mechanic as D&D. That's what I mean
by "like D&D" - like the mechanics.

"buy my car."

"i want a ferrari. is it a ferrari?"

"well, it's like a ferrari, and uses the same core mechanics..."

[David Johnston]

Post by Jasin Zujovic

Post by shoggoth

Post by Matt Pillsbury

Post by shoggoth
I'm thinking that if I have rules based on d20 - I will be able to
say to them "Yes - it's very like D&D" (lying through my teeth,
because the only resemblance to D&D will be the core mechanic).

Well, I'd be pretty irritated to learn that a GM had lied to me when
he pitched the game.

So you leave after the first week, so what? I'm sure some
players will leave after the first week - there's always some
who never really had the time and others who take offence too
easily. At least there'll be a game to leave this way - rather
than no game at all.
I would actually say - "It's like D&D - it's fantasy and it uses
the same core mechanic - but you just can't use the D&D classes,
races, alignment, etc." [Nothing from D&D actually, not even the
fecking monsters].

What's the point of that?
Why not rather say "it's like [something that it's like]" instead saying
it's like D&D, which it is utterly unlike?

Actually getting players to try it.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Jasin Zujovic
Why not rather say "it's like [something that it's like]" instead saying
it's like D&D, which it is utterly unlike?

Actually getting players to try it.

My sister went to a party once where someone brought a platter
of small brown balls covered with slivered almonds. Mm, chocolate!
So she bit into one, and discovered that it was chilled spiced
hamburger.

She said she might have liked chilled spiced hamburger on its
own merits, but as it was she nearly gagged. The things turned out
to be called "hedgehogs" and now my family uses this name for
anything that pretends to be one food when it's really something
totally different.

Most people, in my experience, react badly to hedgehogs.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[George D. Phillies]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
My sister went to a party once where someone brought a platter
of small brown balls covered with slivered almonds. Mm, chocolate!
So she bit into one, and discovered that it was chilled spiced
hamburger.
She said she might have liked chilled spiced hamburger on its
own merits, but as it was she nearly gagged. The things turned out
to be called "hedgehogs" and now my family uses this name for
anything that pretends to be one food when it's really something
totally different.
Most people, in my experience, react badly to hedgehogs.

In this case, you wish to avoid high grade Victorian-epoch English or
French cooking, where much was a masterpiece of disguise.

George Phillies
Editor, Game!
http://www.gametableonline.com/?url=game

[Peter Knutsen]

shoggoth wrote:
[...]

Post by shoggoth
What potential players want to know is 'will I understand the
rules'. I'll offer them edited versions of the d20 system
reference documents. They can have nearly the full rules if they
want - the same ones I use. [But no - they can't have the
monster rules too and can't see the magic rules unless their
character is a mage.]

Pardon my Frankish, but how the fuck is a potential player
empowered to make an informed decision about whether or not
to consent to play a mage in your campaign, *before* he has
been allowed to read the magic rules?

[shoggoth]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:43:06 +0100, Peter Knutsen

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

Post by shoggoth
What potential players want to know is 'will I understand the
rules'. I'll offer them edited versions of the d20 system
reference documents. They can have nearly the full rules if they
want - the same ones I use. [But no - they can't have the
monster rules too and can't see the magic rules unless their
character is a mage.]

Pardon my Frankish, but how the fuck is a potential player
empowered to make an informed decision about whether or not
to consent to play a mage in your campaign, *before* he has
been allowed to read the magic rules?

He can see the magic rules. He just doesn't get to see the
advanced spells which his character couldn't possibly know about
anyway. The only thing his character could know about those
advanced spells are names and approximate effects. I shall let
him see 30 basic spells in those rules. The other (100+) higher
level spells work on the same principles but are only available
at higher levels and he will just have to extrapolate according
to his imagination.

If, after that, he still insists on seeing the rules I will
suggest that he sticks to your campaign and I'll send him your
email address.

I'm not empowering the potential players. I'd only want to
empower actual players - but only if they put the effort in do
they deserve the effort back from me. After all why should I
write 100+ spell details out when 90% of those spells are
unlikely to get cast unless players stick with the campaign for
at least 4 months?

Is that reasonable? That players should have rules for playing
10th level characters when they're starting at 1st level and the
player may drop out (or their character may die) way before
that?

How does it empower me to waste my time writing rules instead of
background detail, NPC, plots, factions and a fucking game -
rather that just the fucking rules? [pardon my French].

[Bradd W. Szonye]

He can see the magic rules. He just doesn't get to see the advanced
spells which his character couldn't possibly know about anyway. The
only thing his character could know about those advanced spells are
names and approximate effects. I shall let him see 30 basic spells in
those rules. The other (100+) higher level spells work on the same
principles but are only available at higher levels and he will just
have to extrapolate according to his imagination.

Why bother? That only works once anyway, just like keeping the Monster
Manual or DMG secret.

I'm not empowering the potential players. I'd only want to
empower actual players - but only if they put the effort in do
they deserve the effort back from me.

Bah. If there's anything more stupid than the God GM idea, it's the
Mysterious God GM. Indeed, the latter is one of the main reasons why the
God GM idea is stupid.

After all why should I write 100+ spell details out when 90% of those
spells are unlikely to get cast unless players stick with the campaign
for at least 4 months?

Even better -- the Lazy Mysterious God GM. Good luck with that.

Is that reasonable?

No. You want to run a game, do your homework first. Like you said above:
You only deserve the Big Chair if you put in the effort.

How does it empower me to waste my time --

So it's much better to waste the players' time instead, eh? Lying to
them about what you plan to run, keeping the rules secret, etc. Shoo.

[Hendrik Belitz]

He can see the magic rules. He just doesn't get to see the advanced
spells which his character couldn't possibly know about anyway. The
only thing his character could know about those advanced spells are
names and approximate effects. I shall let him see 30 basic spells in
those rules. The other (100+) higher level spells work on the same
principles but are only available at higher levels and he will just
have to extrapolate according to his imagination.

If this really neccessary, think about looking for other players. A good
player should be able to distinguish what his character may know or not,
and also play his character this way. If it ain't working this way in your
group, your're out of luck. Godlike secrecy used against the players is
bad ... very bad. Never ever try to do this!

After all why should I write 100+ spell details out when 90% of those
spells are unlikely to get cast unless players stick with the campaign
for at least 4 months?

Who told you that you need to do this? If none of the players is capable of
weilding mighty, mighty mojo, you can design higher magic at a later time.

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by shoggoth
After all why should I
write 100+ spell details out when 90% of those spells are
unlikely to get cast unless players stick with the campaign for
at least 4 months?
Is that reasonable?

No, you're a fucktard.

Post by shoggoth
That players should have rules for playing
10th level characters when they're starting at 1st level and the
player may drop out (or their character may die) way before
that?

If their choices at first level influence what they will be doing at 10,
then they cannot make intelligent choices without that information.

Post by shoggoth
How does it empower me to waste my time writing rules instead of
background detail, NPC, plots, factions and a fucking game -
rather that just the fucking rules? [pardon my French].

Players are there to play, not suck your dick and make you feel better
about yourself.

[Beowulf Bolt]

Post by Robert Scott Clark
Players are there to play, not suck your dick and make you feel better
about yourself.

Don't mince words, Bobby. Tell us what you *really* feel.

Biff

[shoggoth]

Post by Matt Pillsbury

Post by shoggoth
Is d20 without levels possible?
We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
level-less d20 would it still be d20?

According to the technical definition of "d20", yes, it would

Thanks for the advice Matt and don't take my other (rather rude)
post too seriously. I've been let down a few times by players
showing interest in the background and backing out when they
learnt that I was using a rule system they were unfamiliar with.
I shouldn't take that out on you - after you were so kind to
post me advice. So - please accept my apology for the rudeness
of my previous post.

I will write my new d20 rules today. [I meant - edit the system
reference docs]

If I can't get players for this game I will get a new job and
move to a big city or something!!

Post by Matt Pillsbury
, though
I suspect that a lot of people who find "d20" a selling point wouldn't
be interested in it.

I suspect that a lot of people play D&D because it's easy to get
a D&D game - as so many other people know how to play it.

[Hong Ooi]

Post by shoggoth

Post by Matt Pillsbury

Post by shoggoth
Is d20 without levels possible?
We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
level-less d20 would it still be d20?

According to the technical definition of "d20", yes, it would

Thanks for the advice Matt and don't take my other (rather rude)
post too seriously. I've been let down a few times by players
showing interest in the background and backing out when they
learnt that I was using a rule system they were unfamiliar with.

But what you're talking about isn't going to solve this problem. It'll just
postpone the point where they back out on you.

[shoggoth]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:39:21 +1100, Hong Ooi

Post by Hong Ooi

Post by shoggoth

Post by Matt Pillsbury

Post by shoggoth
Is d20 without levels possible?
We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
level-less d20 would it still be d20?

According to the technical definition of "d20", yes, it would

Thanks for the advice Matt and don't take my other (rather rude)
post too seriously. I've been let down a few times by players
showing interest in the background and backing out when they
learnt that I was using a rule system they were unfamiliar with.

But what you're talking about isn't going to solve this problem. It'll just
postpone the point where they back out on you.

Unless they don't back out.

Maybe they've just not had an opportunity to play in a world
where they could get into deep immersive roleplaying - which is
what I want out of them?

If they do back out then - at least we would all have learnt
something from the experience.

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by shoggoth
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:39:21 +1100, Hong Ooi

Post by Hong Ooi

Post by shoggoth

Post by Matt Pillsbury

Post by shoggoth
Is d20 without levels possible?
We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
level-less d20 would it still be d20?

According to the technical definition of "d20", yes, it would

Thanks for the advice Matt and don't take my other (rather rude)
post too seriously. I've been let down a few times by players
showing interest in the background and backing out when they
learnt that I was using a rule system they were unfamiliar with.

But what you're talking about isn't going to solve this problem. It'll
just postpone the point where they back out on you.

Unless they don't back out.
Maybe they've just not had an opportunity to play in a world
where they could get into deep immersive roleplaying - which is
what I want out of them?

Who cares if she says no, if I stick my dick in her she's sure to like
it.

Post by shoggoth
If they do back out then - at least we would all have learnt
something from the experience.

They'd have learned not to trust you.

[Jasin Zujovic]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by shoggoth

Post by Hong Ooi
But what you're talking about isn't going to solve this problem. It'll
just postpone the point where they back out on you.

Unless they don't back out.
Maybe they've just not had an opportunity to play in a world
where they could get into deep immersive roleplaying - which is
what I want out of them?

Who cares if she says no, if I stick my dick in her she's sure to like
it.

So that's what they mean when they say "deep immersive".

[w***@yahoo.com]

If you want deep immersive roleplaying, and I applaud that desire,
there are more important things than what system you use and whether it
has levels. I have not run any D&D or AD&D or D20 rules in many years
and I do run a roleplaying-heavy campaign. However, the two things are
not connected. I have played in campaigns with good players and good
GMs since I started playing in 1978 and the rules have never mattered
as much as the people.

Will in New Haven

[Mitch Williams]

As a proponent of Fudge I have the "I don't know that system so I wont play"
problem very often. My advice, go ahead and write the game you want to
write. Sell it to the players based on the _setting_ not the system. Offer
a one-shot adventure with (mostly) pre-generated characters to get them into
the setting. (leave a little room for them to customize the character). I
even like to have players go into the game with just the setting info and
little or no character generation done before hand. This article describes
how: http://www.fudgefactor.org/2004/05/05/fudge_on_the_fly.html . Even if
you don't know or play Fudge it's good advice.

Remember, our hobby is called role-playing... and _playing_ implies "having
fun" <G>

Mitch

[shoggoth]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:15:37 -0600, "Mitch Williams"

Post by Mitch Williams
As a proponent of Fudge I have the "I don't know that system so I wont play"
problem very often. My advice, go ahead and write the game you want to
write. Sell it to the players based on the _setting_ not the system. Offer
a one-shot adventure with (mostly) pre-generated characters to get them into
the setting. (leave a little room for them to customize the character). I
even like to have players go into the game with just the setting info and
little or no character generation done before hand. This article describes
how: http://www.fudgefactor.org/2004/05/05/fudge_on_the_fly.html . Even if
you don't know or play Fudge it's good advice.
Remember, our hobby is called role-playing... and _playing_ implies "having
fun" <G>
Mitch

Cheers Mitch. I did just that. I used Tri-Stat (which is the
core behind BESM) and wrote out some lovely rules. As soon as I
mentioned "Tri-stat" they said whaaat and when I mentioned BESM
they said: "Oh no, not Anime". I replied "yes that's right, not
Anime", but by then they'd gone.

I will used d20 with the characters pared back to 1e
power-levels and the XPs per level based on an exponential range
such as:

Level
1 2000
2 6000
3 14000
etc.

or something similar. The outlandish feats removed. HD per level
half that of D&D.

I always enjoyed playing weak characters forced to live on their
wits and I'd like the PCs to try that too. If it just doesn't
work out, well, at least I tried. Next time when people who meet
me at a game ask "Do you GM?" I'll reply "Yes, but I can't find
any players". They'll say "We can't find a GM" and I'll reply:
"Perhaps you should consider going half the way?, I will".

[Nockermensch]

Post by shoggoth
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:15:37 -0600, "Mitch Williams"

Post by Mitch Williams
Remember, our hobby is called role-playing... and _playing_ implies "having
fun" <G>
Mitch

Cheers Mitch. I did just that. I used Tri-Stat (which is the
core behind BESM) and wrote out some lovely rules. As soon as I
mentioned "Tri-stat" they said whaaat and when I mentioned BESM
they said: "Oh no, not Anime". I replied "yes that's right, not
Anime", but by then they'd gone.

People these days... As a prospective player my answers to your query
would be:

"Cool, isn't Tri-stat that system behind BESM?"

"Yes, Anime!"

"What? Not anime?" *walks away*

Post by shoggoth
I will used d20 with the characters pared back to 1e
power-levels and the XPs per level based on an exponential range
Level
1 2000
2 6000
3 14000
etc.

I understand your reasoning. I just don't like it.

Post by shoggoth
or something similar. The outlandish feats removed. HD per level
half that of D&D.

Define "outlandish feats".

Post by shoggoth
I always enjoyed playing weak characters forced to live on their
wits and I'd like the PCs to try that too.

Weakness is relative. What you really mean is: "I want that one 1st
level warrior armed with a longsword keeps being a dangerous encounter
for a longer time."

Post by shoggoth
If it just doesn't
work out, well, at least I tried. Next time when people who meet
me at a game ask "Do you GM?" I'll reply "Yes, but I can't find
"Perhaps you should consider going half the way?, I will".

Compromises like this are good. But see if your prospective players
already have expectations of what they want in a RPG (here looking for
newbies can help, as they usually play well into any style).

--
@ @ Nockermensch, and for any player with previous experience in D&D,
be sincere about your wishes to run a low power campaign. Those
insterested will sign in, those who aren't will walk away, no hard
feelings.

[Jasin Zujovic]

the characters pared back to 1e power-levels
[...]
The outlandish feats removed. HD per level half that of D&D.
[...]
I always enjoyed playing weak characters forced to live on their
wits and I'd like the PCs to try that too.

Note that it's important to consider whether the players would like that
too.

And if they would, maybe the simplest way to play D&D at power levels
half those of standard D&D is to play D&D at the lower half of the 20-
level range? Even without diminished XP, 10 levels provides plenty
enough game time and neatly eliminates the more powerful half of...
well, everything, which seems to be in tune with what you want.

[shoggoth]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:14:41 +0100, Jasin Zujovic

Post by Jasin Zujovic

the characters pared back to 1e power-levels
[...]
The outlandish feats removed. HD per level half that of D&D.
[...]
I always enjoyed playing weak characters forced to live on their
wits and I'd like the PCs to try that too.

Note that it's important to consider whether the players would like that
too.
And if they would, maybe the simplest way to play D&D at power levels
half those of standard D&D is to play D&D at the lower half of the 20-
level range? Even without diminished XP, 10 levels provides plenty
enough game time and neatly eliminates the more powerful half of...
well, everything, which seems to be in tune with what you want.

As I see it, the desired power range is closer to AD&D levels
1-5. Which I estimate map to 3e D&D levels 1-3. Anything above
that and I'm having to make all kinds of adjustments to my
background world to accomodate the rules. The rules shouldn't
impose themselves on the background world. It should be the
other way round if anything.

I'll keep people up-to-date on whether I manage to recruit
players. If I can't I'll have to go further to get a game but at
least I'll have my Tri-stat rules back

[Ubiquitous]

In article <KO%od.42573$***@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, ***@bellsouth.net
says...

Offer a one-shot adventure with (mostly) pre-generated characters to get
them into the setting. (leave a little room for them to customize the
character).

Gee, you have players who accept pre-gens "as is"?

Just about every group I was with insisted on modifying the pre-gens I
gave them, screwing up the adventure because someone would inevitably
replace a skill or feat I gave to help with part of the adventure.

[Travis Casey]

Post by shoggoth
Is d20 without levels possible?
We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
level-less d20 would it still be d20?

Well, technically M&M is OGL and not d20 STL, but that's not that much of a
distinction.

In any case, though, M&M is already almost levelless. "Level" is simply
used to set points and set limits on powers and abilities. Find a
different way to set those limits, and you can easily convert it to a fully
point-based system.

Post by shoggoth
Is d20 just the core mechanic for handling conflicts, skills and
feats, etc OR does d20 also include the rules for generating
characters and character development?

To use the "d20" logo and trademarks, you have to use their rules for
character generation and development.

What constitutes a "real d20" game, on the other hand, is a matter of
opinion. Most people seem to consider M&M to be one, in spite of the fact
that it can't call itself one under the d20 STL.

Technically speaking, the "d20 System" includes everything that's in the d20
System Reference Document. So it also includes hit points, the rules for
movement, opportunity attacks, the different "conditions" that the game
describes and their effects, etc. Most of these things can be changed and
still have a "d20 System" game under the STL, but the more of them you
change, the less likely it is that people will consider it to really be a
"d20" game.

Post by shoggoth
In advance to all those out there who are going to tell me to
use something else - apart from d20 - I already know of 1000
such rule systems but..., The first thing people say to me when
I try to recruit them is "Is it D&D", the second thing they say
is "I haven't time to learn yet another rule system".  I went to
the trouble of writing my background for Tri-Stat - but couldn't
find any takers. When I said it was "like BESM" - that just made
things worse - they thought I wanted them to play an Anime
character.  I'm thinking that if I have rules based on d20 - I
will be able to say to them "Yes - it's very like D&D" (lying
through my teeth, because the only resemblance to D&D will be
the core mechanic).

I wouldn't recommend lying to people you want to get to play your game. It
sets a bad precedent.

What I'd really recommend is *talking to your potential players*. You say
they're asking "is it D&D" rather than "is it d20". They may *only* be
interested in D&D, and not other d20 games. Talk to them about your
setting -- they might have recommendations for a d20 system to run it with.
And getting them involved "on the ground floor" like that will help
increase their interest.

[Charlton Wilbur]

s> The first thing people say to me when I try to recruit them is
s> "Is it D&D", the second thing they say is "I haven't time to
s> learn yet another rule system". [...] I'm thinking that if I
s> have rules based on d20 - I will be able to say to them "Yes -
s> it's very like D&D" (lying through my teeth, because the only
s> resemblance to D&D will be the core mechanic).

Whether this works or not will depend on why they like D&D. If they
like D&D because they have an affinity for roll d20, add modifier,
compare to target number, they'll be happy with your system. If they
like D&D because they like playing half-elven ranger-sorcerers with
two big swords, or if they like playing D&D because they've figured
out where the sweet spots in combat tactics are, they probably won't
like your system at all.

Further, the people in both groups would likely be annoyed at the game
having been misrepresented. I know I would be; I've never played with
a GM again once he pulled off a dishonest bait-and-switch. ("There's
a surprise in this game coming up, but I'd rather not tell you about
it; trust me, ok?" is not dishonest, though I've only known one GM who
actually pulled it off successfully.) Better to be honest and play
with few players than to develop a reputation as a bait-and-switch
type of DM and play with none.

Charlton

[shoggoth]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:29:43 GMT, Charlton Wilbur

Post by Charlton Wilbur
s> The first thing people say to me when I try to recruit them is
s> "Is it D&D", the second thing they say is "I haven't time to
s> learn yet another rule system". [...] I'm thinking that if I
s> have rules based on d20 - I will be able to say to them "Yes -
s> it's very like D&D" (lying through my teeth, because the only
s> resemblance to D&D will be the core mechanic).
Whether this works or not will depend on why they like D&D. If they
like D&D because they have an affinity for roll d20, add modifier,
compare to target number, they'll be happy with your system. If they
like D&D because they like playing half-elven ranger-sorcerers with
two big swords, or if they like playing D&D because they've figured
out where the sweet spots in combat tactics are, they probably won't
like your system at all.
Further, the people in both groups would likely be annoyed at the game
having been misrepresented. I know I would be; I've never played with
a GM again once he pulled off a dishonest bait-and-switch. ("There's
a surprise in this game coming up, but I'd rather not tell you about
it; trust me, ok?" is not dishonest, though I've only known one GM who
actually pulled it off successfully.) Better to be honest and play
with few players than to develop a reputation as a bait-and-switch
type of DM and play with none.
Charlton

A very fair comment Charlton. I will try to make sure that they
know that the power-level of the character classes has been
pruned, the monsters are all different, that 30% of the feats
have just vanished, etc. I'll call it d20 fantasy. I wouldn't
want people who were wedded to D&D for the reasons you give. I'm
looking for more adventurous types (willing to try new things)
who just don't want to spend time thinking about another
mechanic during play.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by shoggoth
I will try to make sure that they
know that the power-level of the character classes has been
pruned, the monsters are all different, that 30% of the feats
have just vanished, etc. I'll call it d20 fantasy. I wouldn't
want people who were wedded to D&D for the reasons you give. I'm
looking for more adventurous types (willing to try new things)
who just don't want to spend time thinking about another
mechanic during play.

Well, if you try it, report back and let us know how it worked
out!

I don't think it would work for me or most of my players, though.
I'm willing to play low-power games but attempts to get there
by stripping stuff out of high-power games haven't been very
well received. Once you strip 30% of the feats, for example,
some characters will be stuck with taking feats that don't really
fit them--the feat selection in v3 or v3.5 is not really big
enough as it stands. Once you prune the power level of the
classes there's a good chance that the demi-fighters (paladin,
ranger, barbarian, monk) won't actually work any more--they
are a bit tricky as it is. The game hangs together fairly well
as a whole--you can remove things, but it's hard work leaving
a solid structure with no gaps.

My other concern would be--getting to know a new system well enough
to roll dice and get through a fight doesn't take that much work.
If your prospective players are saying "We don't want to learn
a new system" I suspect they don't mean "We don't want to learn
a basic mechanic," they mean "We don't want to learn all the ins
and outs and wriggles so as to play at the level of technical
expertese we're accustomed to." This won't fit with what you
want, and misleading them will just delay the reckoning, probably
only slightly.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[David Johnston]

Post by shoggoth
Is d20 without levels possible?
We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
level-less d20 would it still be d20?

Mutants and Masterminds doesn't really have levels as such.
While M&M's power levels are vaguely analogous, really they don't work
like D&D levels, much. You don't get anything for going up in power
level except a higher ceiling on what you can purchase and experience
point advancement system is more like GURPS or Hero than it is D&D's
level driven system.

[Phil Pettifer]

Post by shoggoth
Is d20 without levels possible?

Just wondering why is it you want to get rid of character levels?

If it's to slow down progression then just divide the XP you would
normally give out by some arbitrary number.

If it's to stop the 'jumps' in power that levelling gives then try the
following:

Every time a PC earns, say, 10% (or whatever works) of the XP needed
for the next level let them take one benefit from it. e.g. For a third
level character they'd get benefits at 3300, 3600, 3900, etc. These
could be split up as follows:

+1 BAB
A new feat or 'feat-like' class ability (e.g. Sneak Attack, Wild Shape
or whatever)
An increase to an existing 'feat-like' class ability
All new Spells / Spells per day of one spell level
(Up to) 4 skill points
etc.

Of course this would mean that they'd have to decide which class level
they're going to take earlier than normal but I don't see that as a
problem. When they finally achieve they normal XP for that level they
get any benefits from it that they haven't yet (if there are any,
maybe 10 steps is too many?)

This also means players are more likely to be more forgiving of the
lower XP as they're still advancing fairly often anyway (just in
smaller steps).

[shoggoth]

Post by Phil Pettifer

Post by shoggoth
Is d20 without levels possible?

Just wondering why is it you want to get rid of character levels?
If it's to slow down progression then just divide the XP you would
normally give out by some arbitrary number.

I decided to keep the levels. But I'm going further than that:
returning to the exponential XP scale of 1e, halving hit points
per level, getting rid of the supernatural powers and OTT feats.

Basically bringing everything down a notch. If players don't
want to play at these reduced levels then I won't want to play
with them.

Post by Phil Pettifer
If it's to stop the 'jumps' in power that levelling gives then try the
Every time a PC earns, say, 10% (or whatever works) of the XP needed
for the next level let them take one benefit from it. e.g. For a third
level character they'd get benefits at 3300, 3600, 3900, etc. These

No, it's not just the jumps in level it's the speed of level
advancement, and way these PCs shoot from being nobodies to
being the most powerful characters in the world in the space of
a year or two's gaming. Also, if I have a monster that is
supposed to be terrifying with 4HD then I don't want a 5HD PC
making mincemeat out of it (without having really earned to
right to do so). Nor do I want to constantly change the stats of
my monsters just to accommodate rising PCs stats - what's that
point of that? The very last thing I want to do is to get into
the syndrome of having to bring in more powerful monsters with
extra powers just so that the PCs will have a challenge.

All the standard D&D monsters from the MM are already gone. I
only have about 60 types of monsters, these are the ONLY
monsters and I won't be making any new ones up when/if the PCs
gain 5th level, nor will the monsters be gaining corresponding
levels too. And - you've guessed it - only demons, gods and
their servitors have stats of more than 8HD.

Post by Phil Pettifer
+1 BAB
A new feat or 'feat-like' class ability (e.g. Sneak Attack, Wild Shape
or whatever)
An increase to an existing 'feat-like' class ability
All new Spells / Spells per day of one spell level
(Up to) 4 skill points
etc.

The problem isn't just the gains in stats, HD, feats, etc. Many
of the feats in D&D are supernatural and this is a game world
where people are not supernatural - only magic, and magic is not
innate. Those feats are banned outright.

Post by Phil Pettifer
Of course this would mean that they'd have to decide which class level
they're going to take earlier than normal but I don't see that as a
problem. When they finally achieve they normal XP for that level they
get any benefits from it that they haven't yet (if there are any,
maybe 10 steps is too many?)
This also means players are more likely to be more forgiving of the
lower XP as they're still advancing fairly often anyway (just in
smaller steps).

Not being able to advance a level for many months at a time (not
even from 3rd to 4th) never stopped me playing 1e and 2e - why
do people NEED their characters to become more powerful? - I've
played with loads of groups where we had no kind of gain in PC
power throughout the campaign (not D&D) - and we didn't worry
about that one bit. I'm not saying that this kind of D&D
development of PC powers is always bad but it needs to be kept
within reasonable bounds. Those bounds are reasonable for the
D&D universe but my game-world is in another universe where that
kind of thing doesn't happen.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by shoggoth
No, it's not just the jumps in level it's the speed of level
advancement, and way these PCs shoot from being nobodies to
being the most powerful characters in the world in the space of
a year or two's gaming.

You've got my sympathy there. On the whole I find v3 and v3.5
an improvement over previous versions, but the exp progression
charts are game-busters for me. As a player, I lose all sense
of my character when they go from 1st to 9th in a few game-time
months; as a GM, I just plain go crazy trying to deal with
the PCs' abilities.

It's difficult to fix this element in isolation, at least it
has been for me, because v3.x is written to asssume that
fast advancement. The prestige classes aren't usable unless
you're going for high levels. My player was charmed by many
of the prestige classes and frustrated not to get to try them;
when he tried them, he found that many save all the really
flavorful and interesting parts for very high levels; I can't
run D&D at very high levels. It's been frustrating.

It's also unfortunate that the exp mechanic is tied into the
item-creation mechanic--be sure to watch out for that if you
modify exp. (Unless you're ditching item creation, which
would probably be wise given your other goals.)

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Doug Lampert]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by shoggoth
No, it's not just the jumps in level it's the speed of level
advancement, and way these PCs shoot from being nobodies to
being the most powerful characters in the world in the space of
a year or two's gaming.

You've got my sympathy there. On the whole I find v3 and v3.5
an improvement over previous versions, but the exp progression
charts are game-busters for me. As a player, I lose all sense
of my character when they go from 1st to 9th in a few game-time
months; as a GM, I just plain go crazy trying to deal with
the PCs' abilities.

Why is it that fast in game time?

Game time and player time need not corralate that tightly
after all. Nor does there need to be a major threat every
session. If there are unlimited serious, active, threats
appropriate for level 8 chararacters out there (pretty
well required for level nine to be almost instant) then
the whole world loses plausibility for me unless there are
ALSO almost unlimited level 8+ parties dealing with the
threats. (In which case level 9 is barely out of
aprenticeship, and you are probably in an epic game.)

Figure that an "appropriate" adventure comes up two or three
times a game year, and that only if you are willing to travel,
pay careful attention, use gather information, and have a
good reputation so people come and ask you for help; this is
interspaced with several "run and get someone more powerful
to solve this" and "oh goblins again, looks like more first
level wariors walking into our cloudkill spells" style
adventures.

PC's advance a level once a game year or so. They prosper more
than others largely because they never meet the sneeky subtle
powerful adversary who attacks when no help is available and
looks weak till it is too late to run.

You spend maybe five or six sessions per level instead of the
three or four that will be typical in a more stereotypical
campaign. Spellcasters have plenty of time to research spells,
social types have plenty of time to attend the Baroness's
charity balls or build temples to their gods, characters with
craft skills can actually use them, the setting is orders of
magnitude more plausible IMAO.

(Note the temples, charity balls, and training young would be
adventurers have all been done in my 3.x games.)

There is no need to change treasure and EP awards to slow
advancement. PC's need to beat roughly 3.25 times their wieght
in oponents to advance. Why in the world would there ALWAYS be
13 times their number in one quarter their strength groups of
enemies standing politely in line and not attacking all at
once for them to kill and advance another level?

And if the enemies are not so considerate as to always have
a line outside the town gates it takes as long (game time) to
advance as you want it to.

DougL

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Doug Lampert
Figure that an "appropriate" adventure comes up two or three
times a game year, and that only if you are willing to travel,
pay careful attention, use gather information, and have a
good reputation so people come and ask you for help; this is
interspaced with several "run and get someone more powerful
to solve this" and "oh goblins again, looks like more first
level wariors walking into our cloudkill spells" style
adventures.

I think a fundamental difference here is that "one adventure"
to me is generally a big linked set of events and encounters.
I started with v3 running modules (not enough time to prepare
my own material) and the modules are definitely like that:
almost every published module gives, and many practically
require, somewhere between 2 and 5 level advancements *during
that one adventure*.

Even with the current game, which no longer uses modules, I
find that what I would think of as a single scenario (such
as the mind-worm beneath the town) often generates enough
encounters for more than one level jump under v3. (I don't
give them, though.)

Post by Doug Lampert
There is no need to change treasure and EP awards to slow
advancement. PC's need to beat roughly 3.25 times their wieght
in oponents to advance. Why in the world would there ALWAYS be
13 times their number in one quarter their strength groups of
enemies standing politely in line and not attacking all at
once for them to kill and advance another level?

This doesn't seem to be necessary. My experience is that
a proactive PC group can handle things much higher CR than
themselves, with good planning and preparation, due to the
significant advantage of the attacker in v3. This effect
becomes more and more pronounced at high level. Certainly
the NPCs could return the favor and kill the PCs, but this
seems more an admission of GMing failure than a real solution.
I don't want the PCs to "turtle" and refuse to do anything.

It's certainly possible to imagine a situation in which
appropriate challenges were very few and far between, but I
think I would find such a game unsatisfying. I've seen it
happen when the PCs are at the top of their setting, but
I generally dislike running that. A setting in which PCs well
below the top of their setting generally cannot find anything
relevant to do is, to me, a frustrating one.

But I also think I misspoke myself earlier. Quick advancement
in game-time is a problem for me, because of plausibility, but
quick advancement in session time is a much bigger problem. It
pushes me rapidly out of my GMing comfort zone, which is quite
narrow. It also breaks down my grasp of the PCs' capabilities,
which leads to worse scenario design and more stressful play.
I found running _City of the Spider Queen_ inordinately stressful,
though the player enjoyed it; I don't think I could ever do
something like that without the module support.

My player does not encourage us to play out goblin-vs-cloudkill
encounters, so while they occupy game-time, they do not occupy
session time. Roleplaying does, but not enough (in my hands)
to mitigate the effect of v3's much faster advancement.

In the end I didn't cut the level advancement: I threw out the
entire exp system and just gave levels when it seemed necessary.
This revealed rather clearly that my player's comfort zone is
wider than mine, and that he really misses getting to see things
like the developed state of prestiege classes; but I don't think
there's much I can do about that. v3 is a very frustrating
system for us. It does a lot of what we want, but it's built
around fast advancement/high levels and you lose something if
you don't permit those.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Warren J. Dew]

Mary Kuhner posts, in part:

This doesn't seem to be necessary. My experience is that
a proactive PC group can handle things much higher CR than
themselves, with good planning and preparation, due to the
significant advantage of the attacker in v3. This effect
becomes more and more pronounced at high level. Certainly
the NPCs could return the favor and kill the PCs, but this
seems more an admission of GMing failure than a real solution.

I wonder if an occasional scenario of this type might not be
interesting to your player. Certainly the wargamer in me finds
being on the tactical defense more challenging, due to the need
to react in real time to the specifics of the attack rather than
having the luxury of putting together a plan of attack at one's
leisure.

That might make for a nice campaign if one wanted slower
advancement, too - one would be throwing lower power attackers
at the player characters to ensure balance, which would provide
less experience for the same challenge.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <***@mb-m06.aol.com>,
Warren J. Dew <***@aol.com> wrote:

[defense scenarios rather than attack ones]

Post by Warren J. Dew
I wonder if an occasional scenario of this type might not be
interesting to your player. Certainly the wargamer in me finds
being on the tactical defense more challenging, due to the need
to react in real time to the specifics of the attack rather than
having the luxury of putting together a plan of attack at one's
leisure.

It's an interesting idea, and we've done a few. They are
*extremely* tough in v3; above a certain level of attacker I'm
not sure we know how to arrange a defense at all. But it can
work at the lower levels.

My usual problem is that if the PCs have any warning of the
problem, they will strive to find a pre-emptive attack since
attack trumps defense so strongly. If they have no warning,
mortality tends to be high--even if the PCs can collectively
handle the threat, someone is likely to be caught off guard or
out of position. But there are circumstances where the PCs
can be relatively naturally forced on the defensive.

Jon has mused several times on running _The Seven Samurai_ or
_The Magnificent Seven_ as a scenario, but has never convinced
either of us that it will work.

Post by Warren J. Dew
That might make for a nice campaign if one wanted slower
advancement, too - one would be throwing lower power attackers
at the player characters to ensure balance, which would provide
less experience for the same challenge.

It's going to be a little hard to justify to the players
that they get less exp for an equal or harder challenge, if
they care about such things at all. They're likely to feel
that the CR should be ugraded for the greatly enhanced
difficulty of a defensive scenario.

I can think of a couple of base-defense scenarios from our
campaigns. Significant number of total party kills involved,
though also some memorably good scenarios. If the NPCs were
chosen to challenge the PCs under equal circumstances, though,
in most systems and at most levels I find that the PCs will lose
a defense scenario. We found this to be true in Shadowrun
and in all versions of D&D, at least. Feng Shui is a bit
more forgiving.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Russell Impagliazzo]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
Jon has mused several times on running _The Seven Samurai_ or
_The Magnificent Seven_ as a scenario, but has never convinced
either of us that it will work.

I ran a Seven Samurai D&D session about a year ago, which seemed
successful to me. However, I ran it as a low-level game (around 3rd
level) since A. That's what the PC's were at the time, B. It seemed
to fit the premise of the story: desperate villagers recruit
unconventional, low-budget heroes to aid in their defence.

The scenario was basically: A village was in a hard to defend area. A
large goblin band (in the hundreds) would make periodic attacks on the
whole Barony. The goblins would send scouts out beforehand to pick out
the least protected areas to focus their raids on. The Baroness had
decided that, strategically, it was better to abandon one village, and
have her troops protect the rest of the Barony. The villagers turned to
the PC's for help, pooling their money for a reward.

While the PCs needed to defend the village, they didn't need to (nor did
they) fight the goblin hordes single-handedly. Most of the adventure
was in setting things up so that the goblins didn't pick the village as
the weak point, and in mending relations between the Baroness and the
villagers so that the village would be provided a defense in the future.
Here's what they did:

A. Hired a group of third-rate mercenaries
B. Got the Baroness to provide a cosmetic defense: second-hand guard
uniforms and weapons, and send a troop of her guards to the village
before the attack was expected (pulling them back to the ramparts soon
before the attack, but letting them be seen by the scouts.)
C. Drilled the villagers as a militia, until they could at least look
like guards (if not withstand a real attack.)
D. Investigated the source of the reward money, which turned out to be
from the possessions of a group of warriors that had died defending the
village during the previous raid
E. Made an alliance with a semi-sentient animal that lived in the area
and could serve as a watch.
F. Exterminated a group of goblin scouts. This was the only played-out
combat. Intentionally left another group alive to report back to goblin
HQ.
G. Defended the village during the actual raid. But since they had
successfully convinced the goblins to spearhead their attack elsewhere,
this was just a matter of picking off a few stragglers and wasn't played
out.

Since the goblins had been redirected to a well-defended area, they were
slaughtered by the Baroness's guards, and would be in so shape for raids
in the near future. To prevent the pattern from repeating, the Baroness
instituted a special tax on the villagers, who were less poor than they
pretended, to maintain the mercenaries. The villagers were also
required to participate in the militia that the PCs had started. In
return, the Baroness would provide weapons and uniforms, and co-ordinate
their defense with the rest of the Barony's.

Besides relating a game story, I guess my point is that both ``attack''
and ``defense'' situations can have more complex ``victory conditions''
than ``Kill all the enemy''.

Russell Impagliazzo ***@cs.ucsd.edu

[Warren J. Dew]

Regarding a campaign in which characters are on the defensive,
Mary Kuhner posts, in part:

It's going to be a little hard to justify to the players
that they get less exp for an equal or harder challenge, if
they care about such things at all. They're likely to feel
that the CR should be ugraded for the greatly enhanced
difficulty of a defensive scenario.

I think this question wouldn't come up if the characters were
always on the defensive. If there were no opportunities to go
on the offensive, there wouldn't be an opportunity cost to
staying on the defensive.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[shoggoth]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:57:21 +0000 (UTC),

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by shoggoth
No, it's not just the jumps in level it's the speed of level
advancement, and way these PCs shoot from being nobodies to
being the most powerful characters in the world in the space of
a year or two's gaming.

You've got my sympathy there. On the whole I find v3 and v3.5
an improvement over previous versions, but the exp progression
charts are game-busters for me. As a player, I lose all sense
of my character when they go from 1st to 9th in a few game-time
months; as a GM, I just plain go crazy trying to deal with
the PCs' abilities.
It's difficult to fix this element in isolation, at least it
has been for me, because v3.x is written to asssume that
fast advancement. The prestige classes aren't usable unless
you're going for high levels. My player was charmed by many
of the prestige classes and frustrated not to get to try them;
when he tried them, he found that many save all the really
flavorful and interesting parts for very high levels; I can't
run D&D at very high levels. It's been frustrating.
It's also unfortunate that the exp mechanic is tied into the
item-creation mechanic--be sure to watch out for that if you
modify exp. (Unless you're ditching item creation, which
would probably be wise given your other goals.)

Mary,

Of all the posters here you've struck me as one of the most (if
not the most) sensible. The fact that the most sensible person
here agrees with me is all the confirmation I need.

Fortunately - I'm using d20 and I expect there will be no
published scenarios used in my game. No need for me to keep
everything balanced !! [But, hey, that's how we used to play
1e, pitting 1st level PCs against 4th level NPCs was the sort of
thing we did all the time; likewise 4th level PCs against 9th
level monsters. Great fun - lots of near death experiences.]
Game balance - phah, who needs its it. The game's about having
fun - not about always winning in a "fair" fight.

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by shoggoth
Is d20 without levels possible?
We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
level-less d20 would it still be d20?
Suppose I adjusted it to have higher amounts of XPs for the
level advancement (exponential scale like 1e) and gave only half
a hit die per level - would that be d20?
Is d20 just the core mechanic for handling conflicts, skills and
feats, etc OR does d20 also include the rules for generating
characters and character development?

d20 is a (pretty darned successful) marketing ploy by WotC. If you want to
call your game d20 and it follows the rules of the d20 liscense, then it's
d20, whether you have classes, levels, or even d20s in the game. There is
absolutely nothing stopping you from publishing your homebrew that uses
tarot cards and bottlerockets for conflict resolution and calling it d20 if
it makes you happy, as long as you follow all the other rules.

[Abrigon Gusiq]

Classes are like Gurps and Hero package deals?

Mike

[David Alex Lamb]

Post by Abrigon Gusiq
Classes are like Gurps and Hero package deals?

Only at first glance. IIRC a package deal affects you at character creation
time but not during play. A class also governs how you advance, typically
requiring specific amounts of advancement in specific skills.

[Brandon Cope]

Post by Abrigon Gusiq
Classes are like Gurps and Hero package deals?

Classes are not at all like GURPS templates (I can't speak for Hero).
A player creating a character is free to add or subtract anything from
a template (subject to campaign requirements). A template is, really,
just a collection of abilities a character of that type should have
and allows a player to more quickly create a character without
accidentally leaving some ability out. Finally, one *doesn't* have to
use a template to create a character in GURPS and a character created
using a template has no game advantage over a character built
"normally".

OTOH, in systems with classes, you normally have very little ability
to customize them, you have to take abilities you may not want, and
they are not optional.

Brandon

[Charlton Wilbur]

BC> A player creating a character is free to add or subtract
BC> anything from a template (subject to campaign requirements). A
BC> template is, really, just a collection of abilities a
BC> character of that type should have and allows a player to more
BC> quickly create a character without accidentally leaving some
BC> ability out.

To extend this: there are two basic kinds of templates in GURPS.

You have the template that Brandon is talking about. As a
for-instance, there's a Beat Officer template in GURPS Cops. Someone
who wanted to play a beat cop could start with that template, make the
choices that are in it (of the form "10 points of Advantages from this
list of 8 possible Advantages", or "5 skills from this list, at the
levels indicated"), choose enough extra skills and advantages to reach
the campaign's point total, and have a fully playable character in
much less time than it would take to create such a character from
scratch.

That sort of template is incredibly useful, even to experienced
players; it prevents the moment of stunned silence when you realize
that this character, who's supposed to be a master detective, doesn't
have Forensics or Interrogation skill. It also offers no point breaks
over buying all the things on it separately.

The other sort of template is a racial template, and it usually
doesn't have the same level of picking and choosing. For instance,
the campaign's racial template for Orcs might include baseline ST 12,
baseline IQ 9, Primitive, Blood Lust, and Social Stigma: Orcs. In
that case, a player who wanted to buy off Primitive would have to
invest points in explicitly buying it off, and might not be able to
buy off the Social Stigma (though he might be able to counter it with
a Reputation, or Wealth or Status.) If I understand things correctly,
it's *possible* for racial packages in GURPS 3e to have point crocks;
in this example, part of the Orc racial package cost would be 20
points, paying for ST+2; orc characters would then buy their ST score
up or down as if the baseline were 12 rather than 10. So an orc
character with ST 14 would pay 40 points for it, rather than the usual
45. This has been altered in GURPS 4e, due to flat level costs for
advantages.

BC> OTOH, in systems with classes, you normally have very little
BC> ability to customize them, you have to take abilities you may
BC> not want, and they are not optional.

Or, rather, any ability to customize is dependent entirely on the GM.
(If I were Peter Knutsen, I would no doubt make a comment here about
fellatio.) In practice, it's not that big a deal to customize a
class; you say to the DM, "hey, can I take a level of <class>, but
with this benefit instead of that one?" and the DM says yes. But this
is working outside the rules, and there's little rules support in d20
for making sure that classes are balanced against each other or for
cleanly swapping out class traits for others.

Charlton

[Brandon Cope]

Post by Charlton Wilbur
BC> A player creating a character is free to add or subtract
BC> anything from a template (subject to campaign requirements). A
BC> template is, really, just a collection of abilities a
BC> character of that type should have and allows a player to more
BC> quickly create a character without accidentally leaving some
BC> ability out.
The other sort of template is a racial template, and it usually
doesn't have the same level of picking and choosing.

Right. I didn't mention this one since a professional template
resembles a typical class much more closely than a racial template.

In general, you have to take everything that is part of a racial
template, although with GM permission you may be allowed to drop
certain advantages (the result of injury or illness, for example) and
mental disadvantages (which could make the PC fit in better with
humans). Of course, this could easily lead to other members of the
PC's race considering him a freak ...

Post by Charlton Wilbur
it's *possible* for racial packages in GURPS 3e to have point crocks;
in this example, part of the Orc racial package cost would be 20
points, paying for ST+2; orc characters would then buy their ST score
up or down as if the baseline were 12 rather than 10. So an orc
character with ST 14 would pay 40 points for it, rather than the usual
45.

This has long been one of the major complaints with racial templates.
The one balance, arguably, is tht the player has very little ability
to alter the racial template.

Post by Charlton Wilbur
BC> OTOH, in systems with classes, you normally have very little
BC> ability to customize them, you have to take abilities you may
BC> not want, and they are not optional.
Or, rather, any ability to customize is dependent entirely on the GM.
But this
is working outside the rules, and there's little rules support in d20
for making sure that classes are balanced against each other or for
cleanly swapping out class traits for others.

AD&D 2e had rules for building a character class from scratch.
However, it had the problem that the standard classes had a "point
break" (that is, if you tried to recreate a standard class with the
system, it would always cost more to advance).

Brandon

[Kaos]

Post by Brandon Cope

Post by Abrigon Gusiq
Classes are like Gurps and Hero package deals?

Classes are not at all like GURPS templates (I can't speak for Hero).
A player creating a character is free to add or subtract anything from
a template (subject to campaign requirements).

<sigh>
First, that's marginally misleading: there are restrictions (rooted
primarily in balance.) Namely, points: you can't add anything unless
you have the points to do so.

Second, D&D allows you do the same thing with classes. It even
provides an example of such, implying that such changes should not be
discouraged. D&D just uses "DM consent" as the balance mechanism
rather than point values on the components.

In either case you're allowed to subtract things - in GURPS that gets
you more points to add, in D&D that gets you more credit wrt DM
judgement call.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Kaos

Post by Brandon Cope

Post by Abrigon Gusiq
Classes are like Gurps and Hero package deals?

Classes are not at all like GURPS templates (I can't speak for Hero).
A player creating a character is free to add or subtract anything from
a template (subject to campaign requirements).

<sigh>
First, that's marginally misleading: there are restrictions (rooted
primarily in balance.) Namely, points: you can't add anything unless
you have the points to do so.

True, but character point totals can be considered part of "campaign
requirements".

Post by Kaos
Second, D&D allows you do the same thing with classes. It even
provides an example of such, implying that such changes should not be
discouraged. D&D just uses "DM consent" as the balance mechanism
rather than point values on the components.

If this is so easy to do, then why still have classes? I think the
answer is that it really isn't that easy to do.

Post by Kaos
In either case you're allowed to subtract things - in GURPS that gets
you more points to add, in D&D that gets you more credit wrt DM
judgement call.

I hate to sound like Peter Knutsen here (egads), but that leaves a
player completely subject to the whims and capabilities of the DM. It
also puts a burden on the DM by forcing him to, theory, consider the
value of every class ability. A point-based system is not quite as
arbitary in its costs (although a GM can obviously change costs for a
particular campaign).

Brandon

[Sea Wasp]

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
Second, D&D allows you do the same thing with classes. It even
provides an example of such, implying that such changes should not be
discouraged. D&D just uses "DM consent" as the balance mechanism
rather than point values on the components.

If this is so easy to do, then why still have classes? I think the
answer is that it really isn't that easy to do.

It's TRIVIALLY easy to do. "Hey, I'd rather have Feat X as my freebie
than Feat Y" or "Hey, could I pick this spell from the Cleric List
instead of the Mage list? I want Spell X, which fits what I'm going
for", and the GM says... "Sure, go ahead."

It's far easier than tracking points. I just think "Hey, does that
make sense for the character? And does it step on anyone's toes? If
the answer to the first question is 'yes' and the second is 'no', then
I tell the player 'go ahead'."

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
Second, D&D allows you do the same thing with classes. It even
provides an example of such, implying that such changes should not be
discouraged. D&D just uses "DM consent" as the balance mechanism
rather than point values on the components.

If this is so easy to do, then why still have classes? I think the
answer is that it really isn't that easy to do.

It's TRIVIALLY easy to do.

Not if you want to keep balance.

Post by Sea Wasp
It's far easier than tracking points.

I disagree most strongly.

Brandon

[Sea Wasp]

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
Second, D&D allows you do the same thing with classes. It even
provides an example of such, implying that such changes should not

be

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
discouraged. D&D just uses "DM consent" as the balance mechanism
rather than point values on the components.

If this is so easy to do, then why still have classes? I think the
answer is that it really isn't that easy to do.

It's TRIVIALLY easy to do.

Not if you want to keep balance.

Balance is in play. It's not in points or rules.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Not if you want to keep balance.

Balance is in play. It's not in points or rules.

Balance can be in any of the three ... all three, in some cases.
Brandon

[Sea Wasp]

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Not if you want to keep balance.

Balance is in play. It's not in points or rules.

Balance can be in any of the three ... all three, in some cases.
Brandon

It can be somewhat ASSISTED by points and other rules. Play, however,
is the only way in which it is either achieved, or not. You can have
total lack of balance in a game whose rules are trying to maintain
balance; you can't have a lack of balance for any length of time in a
game where the GM is aware of the need for it and pays attention to it.

[Beowulf Bolt]

You can have total lack of balance in a game whose rules are
trying to maintain balance; you can't have a lack of balance
for any length of time in a game where the GM is aware of the
need for it and pays attention to it.

While I agree with you in principle, I am forced to make one nitpick:
even if the GM is aware of an imbalance and wants to correct it, his
hands might be tied by such things as the game contract, etc.

Biff

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Not if you want to keep balance.

Balance is in play. It's not in points or rules.

Balance can be in any of the three ... all three, in some cases.

It can be somewhat ASSISTED by points and other rules. Play,

however,

Post by Sea Wasp
is the only way in which it is either achieved, or not.

If the game designers have already achieved balance in the system
through points and/or rules, then the gaming group has no need to try
to attain balance in play; it already exists.

Only in poorly designed systems does your statement really hold true.
Brandon

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
If the game designers have already achieved balance in the system
through points and/or rules, then the gaming group has no need to try
to attain balance in play; it already exists.

I haven't really found this to be the case. You can take a
party that is excellently well balanced for standard D&Dv3
play, and make it seem completely and infuriatingly imbalanced
by GM choice of scenarios.

The obvious extreme case is running your game on the "Island
where Magic Doesn't Work." Your wizard and sorceror players
will not be happy with game balance anymore. There are more
subtle forms of the same problem, though.

I did a homebrew game where there were strong in-game reasons
for combat to be extremely rare. The player who did a combat
character anyway--reasoning that, although combat was rare, being
the only fighter in the entire party would make up for it--turned
out to be fairly unhappy.

Rules-enforced game balance is kind of an average over possible
scenarios, and the GM can always defeat it with highly non-average
scenario choice.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Sea Wasp]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
If the game designers have already achieved balance in the system
through points and/or rules, then the gaming group has no need to try
to attain balance in play; it already exists.

Yes, I suppose. This is akin to saying "If you had a perfectly
frictionless surface", however, as no such game system exists.

[Kaos]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:16:59 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com
If the game designers have already achieved balance in the system
through points and/or rules, then the gaming group has no need to try
to attain balance in play; it already exists.

Yes, I suppose. This is akin to saying "If you had a perfectly
frictionless surface", however, as no such game system exists.

And even if it does, as soon as you try to modify the system in any
way or for any reason the group has to start paying attention to
balance-in-play again. Even just changing the setting will throw
things out of whack.

I'm all for designers making a reasonable effort at system-balance;
it means less work if the campaign is going to stay close to core,
after all, and if it's *not* going to stay close to core it makes no
difference. But unless you're going to play *pure* core, there will
always be a need to watch for balance-in-play no matter how well the
system itself is balanced.

[Kaos]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:46:16 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Not if you want to keep balance.

Balance is in play. It's not in points or rules.

Balance can be in any of the three ... all three, in some cases.
Brandon

It can be somewhat ASSISTED by points and other rules. Play, however,
is the only way in which it is either achieved, or not. You can have
total lack of balance in a game whose rules are trying to maintain
balance; you can't have a lack of balance for any length of time in a
game where the GM is aware of the need for it and pays attention to it.

Brandon is infamous for (among other things) advocating GM
intervention for preservation of "balance." How he could honestly
argue against it as an effective measure is beyond me.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Oh no! It's Kaos!

Post by Kaos
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:46:16 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Not if you want to keep balance.

Balance is in play. It's not in points or rules.

Balance can be in any of the three ... all three, in some cases.
Brandon

It can be somewhat ASSISTED by points and other rules. Play, however,
is the only way in which it is either achieved, or not. You can have
total lack of balance in a game whose rules are trying to maintain
balance; you can't have a lack of balance for any length of time in a
game where the GM is aware of the need for it and pays attention to it.

Brandon is infamous for (among other things) advocating GM
intervention for preservation of "balance." How he could honestly
argue against it as an effective measure is beyond me.

Consistency has never been Brandon's long suit, but in this case I don't
see the conflict. One is what actually happens in practice, the other is
the theoretical / conceptual case. And while the latter may be of
questionable practical usefulness, he's hardly the first (or worst)
person on rgfa to go a little too far in that direction.

Don't get me wrong, Brandon has plenty of actual faults, I just don't
see this as one of them, at least not in any serious way.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Oh no! It's Kaos!

Post by Kaos
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:46:16 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Not if you want to keep balance.

Balance is in play. It's not in points or rules.

Balance can be in any of the three ... all three, in some cases.
Brandon

It can be somewhat ASSISTED by points and other rules. Play, however,
is the only way in which it is either achieved, or not. You can have
total lack of balance in a game whose rules are trying to maintain
balance; you can't have a lack of balance for any length of time in a
game where the GM is aware of the need for it and pays attention to it.

Brandon is infamous for (among other things) advocating GM
intervention for preservation of "balance." How he could honestly
argue against it as an effective measure is beyond me.

Consistency has never been Brandon's long suit, but in this case I don't
see the conflict. One is what actually happens in practice, the other is
the theoretical / conceptual case.

Well, without a clear division to show me when he's talking from pure
theory and when he's talking about real gaming, it's a rather
pointless discussion. In general, I try to talk about theory as
theory, and practice as practice... but even in theory, I try not to
talk about spherical cows, so to speak. There aren't any rule sets
that are inherently balanced, and certainly not for all reasonable
game situations. That's why computer RPGs do not even vaguely approach
FTF RPG capabilities; even the very best computer RPGs can't compete
with only a passable GM's capabilities.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Sea Wasp
There aren't any rule sets
that are inherently balanced, and certainly not for all reasonable
game situations.

Some games are more balanced than others. Some are designed to be more
balanced over a certain spread of play tyles and/or settings than
others.

The problem is that you are implying that any balance built in by the
game designers is unimportant compared to balance created by a gaming
group. This is not true.

Post by Sea Wasp
That's why computer RPGs do not even vaguely approach
FTF RPG capabilities; even the very best computer RPGs can't compete
with only a passable GM's capabilities.

Well, yes. I never said that computer RPGS were a satisfactory
replacement for a live GM.

Brandon

[Sea Wasp]

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Sea Wasp
There aren't any rule sets
that are inherently balanced, and certainly not for all reasonable
game situations.

Some games are more balanced than others. Some are designed to be more
balanced over a certain spread of play tyles and/or settings than
others.
The problem is that you are implying that any balance built in by the
game designers is unimportant compared to balance created by a gaming
group. This is not true.

It IS true. You can even DELIBERATELY unbalance the rules and have
the game balanced by a gaming group. You cannot do the opposite.

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Sea Wasp
That's why computer RPGs do not even vaguely approach
FTF RPG capabilities; even the very best computer RPGs can't compete
with only a passable GM's capabilities.

Well, yes. I never said that computer RPGS were a satisfactory
replacement for a live GM.

And one of the major reasons for that is that the real-life GMs can
account for things -- including balance issues -- which rules simply
cannot.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Sea Wasp
There aren't any rule sets
that are inherently balanced, and certainly not for all reasonable
game situations.

Some games are more balanced than others. Some are designed to be more
balanced over a certain spread of play tyles and/or settings than
others.
The problem is that you are implying that any balance built in by the
game designers is unimportant compared to balance created by a gaming
group. This is not true.

It IS true. You can even DELIBERATELY unbalance the rules and have
the game balanced by a gaming group. You cannot do the opposite.

Wouldn't the opposite be deliberately balancing the rules and have the
game unbalanced by the group? Outside of simply stating that a balanced
ruleset is unattainable, how is that not possible?
--
Ed Chauvin IV

DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L, use
X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by kids,
since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using modifier G
@ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Kaos
Brandon is infamous for (among other things) advocating GM
intervention for preservation of "balance." How he could honestly
argue against it as an effective measure is beyond me.

I'm not arguing against it. I'm argiung that other methods of
establishing balance are not as insignificant as some others claim.
Brandon

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Not if you want to keep balance.

Balance is in play. It's not in points or rules.

Balance can be in any of the three ... all three, in some cases.
Brandon

[Matt Pillsbury]

[...]

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by c***@yahoo.com
If this is so easy to do, then why still have classes? I think the
answer is that it really isn't that easy to do.

It's TRIVIALLY easy to do.

Not if you want to keep balance.

D&D already has enough structure to keep it from being too hard to do
while maintaining balance in simpler cases, as in swapping out feats,
skills and spells. Doing exotic things is harder, but D&D has a fairly
strong bias towards optimizing for the most common case.

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Sea Wasp
It's far easier than tracking points.

I disagree most strongly.

Points, IME, make for a nice framework if you want to make major
changes, but aren't particularly helpful when it comes to minor ones.

[Kaos]

didn't catch the original, so I'm piggybacking Sea Wasp's post...

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
Second, D&D allows you do the same thing with classes. It even
provides an example of such, implying that such changes should not be
discouraged. D&D just uses "DM consent" as the balance mechanism
rather than point values on the components.

If this is so easy to do, then why still have classes?

They provide common starting points, just like templates in GURPS do.

But I don't think that's the question you really wanted to ask; the
real question is why so many D&D players default to the pure classes
instead of custombuilds or customized classes.

There isn't one single answer to that, though; the reality is an
combination of many reasons. The classes in D&D are complete enough
and have enough internal customization to suit most cases, the system
presents them as the default rather than an alternative to 'real
character generation,' and there's a few insufferable fools like
yourself who just don't understand that you *can* go outside the
default templates. Er, I mean classes.

Post by c***@yahoo.com
I think the
answer is that it really isn't that easy to do.

If you're incompetent and game with incompetents, certainly. And
there are likely varieties of partial competence where the handholding
provided by a points system outweighs the difficulties of crunching
numbers; easy is a very subjective descriptor.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Kaos
didn't catch the original, so I'm piggybacking Sea Wasp's post...

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
Second, D&D allows you do the same thing with classes. It even
provides an example of such, implying that such changes should not be
discouraged. D&D just uses "DM consent" as the balance mechanism
rather than point values on the components.

If this is so easy to do, then why still have classes?

They provide common starting points, just like templates in GURPS do.

Except that templates in GURPS are always optional. In how many D&D
campaiagns can a player choose not to pick a class for his character?

Post by Kaos
But I don't think that's the question you really wanted to ask; the
real question is why so many D&D players default to the pure classes
instead of custombuilds or customized classes.

A: They usually don't have the choice.

Post by Kaos
There isn't one single answer to that, though; the reality is an
combination of many reasons. The classes in D&D are complete enough
and have enough internal customization to suit most cases, the system
presents them as the default rather than an alternative to 'real
character generation,' and there's a few insufferable fools like
yourself who just don't understand that you *can* go outside the
default templates. Er, I mean classes.

Templates and classes aren't interchangable terms, unless you are more
stupid than I think.

Post by Kaos

Post by c***@yahoo.com
I think the
answer is that it really isn't that easy to do.

If you're incompetent and game with incompetents, certainly.

Or it is more work than the DM is willing to go to.

Post by Kaos
And
there are likely varieties of partial competence where the

handholding

Post by Kaos
provided by a points system outweighs the difficulties of crunching
numbers; easy is a very subjective descriptor.

You have this wrong. Classes provided handholding for those unable to
come up with a character concept for their own.

And, unless you are more concerned with optimization than concept,
there is minimum number crunching. Don't create a problem and then
bitch about it; you won't get any sympathy.

Brandon

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
But I don't think that's the question you really wanted to ask; the
real question is why so many D&D players default to the pure classes
instead of custombuilds or customized classes.

A: They usually don't have the choice.

How the hell would you know, troll? You don't even play.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
But I don't think that's the question you really wanted to ask; the
real question is why so many D&D players default to the pure classes
instead of custombuilds or customized classes.

A: They usually don't have the choice.

How the hell would you know, troll? You don't even play.

Would you care to introduce some proof that my statement is wrong?
Brandon

[Matt Pillsbury]

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
But I don't think that's the question you really wanted to ask;
the real question is why so many D&D players default to the
pure classes instead of custombuilds or customized classes.

A: They usually don't have the choice.

How the hell would you know, troll? You don't even play.

Would you care to introduce some proof that my statement is wrong?

Wait, Bradd's supposed to introduce proof that a statement which you
haven't supported in any way, shape or form is wrong?

Er, whatever.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Matt Pillsbury

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
But I don't think that's the question you really wanted to ask;
the real question is why so many D&D players default to the
pure classes instead of custombuilds or customized classes.

A: They usually don't have the choice.

How the hell would you know, troll? You don't even play.

Would you care to introduce some proof that my statement is wrong?

Wait, Bradd's supposed to introduce proof that a statement which you
haven't supported in any way, shape or form is wrong?

Very well, pig-dog:

I believe that the reason most people who play class-based systems
don't use new or customized classes that they they don't have the
choice in the campaign. I believe the reason they don't have the choice
is because many GMs either lack the time or inclination (which could be
for several reasons) to create or modify a new class and make sure it
is balanced with existing classes.

Brandon

[David Johnston]

Post by shoggoth

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
But I don't think that's the question you really wanted to ask;

the

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
real question is why so many D&D players default to the pure

classes

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
instead of custombuilds or customized classes.

A: They usually don't have the choice.

How the hell would you know, troll? You don't even play.

Would you care to introduce some proof that my statement is wrong?

The onus is on the person making the claim. I would say incidentally
that based on my experience, that, save for paladins, there is a
tendency for people to stick to the vanilla classes even when offered
alternatives.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by David Johnston

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by c***@yahoo.com
A: They usually don't have the choice.

How the hell would you know, troll? You don't even play.

Would you care to introduce some proof that my statement is wrong?

The onus is on the person making the claim.

So I have to prove my statement that players don't have a choice, but
Bradd doesn't have to offer any proof when he says I'm wrong?
Very interesting. Very bullshit.

Brandon

[Symbol]

Post by Brandon Cope

Post by Kaos

Post by Brandon Cope

Post by Abrigon Gusiq
Classes are like Gurps and Hero package deals?

Classes are not at all like GURPS templates (I can't speak for

Hero).

Post by Kaos

Post by Brandon Cope
A player creating a character is free to add or subtract anything

from

Post by Kaos

Post by Brandon Cope
a template (subject to campaign requirements).

<sigh>
First, that's marginally misleading: there are restrictions (rooted
primarily in balance.) Namely, points: you can't add anything

unless

Post by Kaos
you have the points to do so.

True, but character point totals can be considered part of "campaign
requirements".

So can the number of classes possessed by a single character. Your
definition is, as usual, beneath contempt. In essence it boils down to "if
there are no restrictions then there are no restrictions".

Post by Brandon Cope

Post by Kaos
Second, D&D allows you do the same thing with classes. It even
provides an example of such, implying that such changes should not be
discouraged. D&D just uses "DM consent" as the balance mechanism
rather than point values on the components.

If this is so easy to do, then why still have classes? I think the
answer is that it really isn't that easy to do.

*Non sequitur*. Classes are often*(1) a mechanism whereby families of
abilities are packaged together in order to limit a completely free
choice. They are there to offer both balance and inherent conceptual
consistency.

Alternatives may also be balanced (and therefore considered) and they may
also be consistent (and therefore considered).

*(1) Some class systems have more in common with Gurps than D&D. Such an
system is used in Morrowing whereby a class is defined by the skills
chosen for the character. Subsequent gains in class skills lead to
increases in Morrowinds version of levels (in which it is more like D&D).

Post by Brandon Cope

Post by Kaos
In either case you're allowed to subtract things - in GURPS that gets
you more points to add, in D&D that gets you more credit wrt DM
judgement call.

I hate to sound like Peter Knutsen here (egads), but that leaves a
player completely subject to the whims and capabilities of the DM.

*Ahem* Mister no-optimization-by-DM-whim.

Substitute "by group agreement" as appropriate.

Post by Brandon Cope
It
also puts a burden on the DM by forcing him to, theory, consider the
value of every class ability.

No it doesn't. Merely the cost of the things an individual wants to
change.

Post by Brandon Cope
A point-based system is not quite as
arbitary in its costs

Hah! Point based systems where you can arrive at the same practical totals
by spending different amounts of points? Pull the other one Cope, that's
got bells on it. The point of classes is that costs are controlled unlike
many point based methods. Arbitrary my arse.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
Second, D&D allows you do the same thing with classes. It even
provides an example of such, implying that such changes should not be
discouraged. D&D just uses "DM consent" as the balance mechanism
rather than point values on the components.

If this is so easy to do, then why still have classes? I think the
answer is that it really isn't that easy to do.

*Non sequitur*. Classes are often*(1) a mechanism whereby families of
abilities are packaged together in order to limit a completely free
choice. They are there to offer both balance and inherent conceptual
consistency.

And thus unacceptably limit a player's ability to construct a
character.

Post by Symbol
Alternatives may also be balanced (and therefore considered) and they may
also be consistent (and therefore considered).

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
In either case you're allowed to subtract things - in GURPS that gets
you more points to add, in D&D that gets you more credit wrt DM
judgement call.

I hate to sound like Peter Knutsen here (egads), but that leaves a
player completely subject to the whims and capabilities of the DM.

*Ahem* Mister no-optimization-by-DM-whim.

It's not by whim, jackass. I've already said why.

Post by Symbol
Substitute "by group agreement" as appropriate.

Post by c***@yahoo.com
It
also puts a burden on the DM by forcing him to, theory, consider the
value of every class ability.

No it doesn't.

In theory it does.

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com
A point-based system is not quite as
arbitary in its costs

The point of classes is that costs are controlled unlike
many point based methods.

Thus unacceptably limiting choice.

Brandon

[Symbol]

Post by Warren J. Dew

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
Second, D&D allows you do the same thing with classes. It even
provides an example of such, implying that such changes should

not be

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
discouraged. D&D just uses "DM consent" as the balance mechanism
rather than point values on the components.

If this is so easy to do, then why still have classes? I think the
answer is that it really isn't that easy to do.

*Non sequitur*. Classes are often*(1) a mechanism whereby families of
abilities are packaged together in order to limit a completely free
choice. They are there to offer both balance and inherent conceptual
consistency.

And thus unacceptably limit a player's ability to construct a
character.

Incorrect, as usual, little fish muncher.

Post by Warren J. Dew

Post by Symbol
Alternatives may also be balanced (and therefore considered) and they

may

Post by Symbol
also be consistent (and therefore considered).

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
In either case you're allowed to subtract things - in GURPS that

gets

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
you more points to add, in D&D that gets you more credit wrt DM
judgement call.

I hate to sound like Peter Knutsen here (egads), but that leaves a
player completely subject to the whims and capabilities of the DM.

*Ahem* Mister no-optimization-by-DM-whim.

It's not by whim, jackass. I've already said why.

So you claim yet every rationalization, justification and example you've
ever given leads to exactly the same conclusion. DM WHIM.

Post by Warren J. Dew

Post by Symbol
Substitute "by group agreement" as appropriate.

Post by c***@yahoo.com
It
also puts a burden on the DM by forcing him to, theory, consider

the

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com
value of every class ability.

No it doesn't.

In theory it does.

By your theories maybe. But your theories are little more than crack
addled fantasies.

Post by Warren J. Dew

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com
A point-based system is not quite as
arbitary in its costs

The point of classes is that costs are controlled unlike
many point based methods.

Thus unacceptably limiting choice.

Not unacceptable to people who prefer consistency obviously.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Symbol
Alternatives may also be balanced (and therefore considered) and they

may

Post by Symbol
also be consistent (and therefore considered).

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
In either case you're allowed to subtract things - in GURPS that

gets

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
you more points to add, in D&D that gets you more credit wrt DM
judgement call.

I hate to sound like Peter Knutsen here (egads), but that leaves a
player completely subject to the whims and capabilities of the DM.

*Ahem* Mister no-optimization-by-DM-whim.

It's not by whim, jackass. I've already said why.

So you claim yet every rationalization, justification and example you've
ever given leads to exactly the same conclusion. DM WHIM.

Not my fault if you are incapable of following what's going on.

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com
A point-based system is not quite as
arbitary in its costs

The point of classes is that costs are controlled unlike
many point based methods.

Thus unacceptably limiting choice.

Not unacceptable to people who prefer consistency obviously.

Not acceptable to people who prefer not to force their character
concepts into limited and artificial categories.

Brandon

[Symbol]

Post by shoggoth

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Symbol
*Ahem* Mister no-optimization-by-DM-whim.

It's not by whim, jackass. I've already said why.

So you claim yet every rationalization, justification and example

you've

Post by Symbol
ever given leads to exactly the same conclusion. DM WHIM.

Not my fault if you are incapable of following what's going on.

How's that juice working out?

Post by shoggoth

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com
A point-based system is not quite as
arbitary in its costs

The point of classes is that costs are controlled unlike
many point based methods.

Thus unacceptably limiting choice.

Not unacceptable to people who prefer consistency obviously.

Not acceptable to people who prefer not to force their character
concepts into limited and artificial categories.

Every statement you make betrays your utter ignorance of a properly
executed class system. If my character is a 3.x edition D&D character
Fighter 3/Rogue 3/Wizard 3 and my concept shoehorned to fit then
*describe* it or shut your ignorant hole for a change.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com
A point-based system is not quite as
arbitary in its costs

The point of classes is that costs are controlled unlike
many point based methods.

Thus unacceptably limiting choice.

Not unacceptable to people who prefer consistency obviously.

Not acceptable to people who prefer not to force their character
concepts into limited and artificial categories.

Every statement you make betrays your utter ignorance of a properly
executed class system.

IMHO a properly executed point-based system is always superior to any
class-based system.

Post by Symbol
If my character is a 3.x edition D&D character
Fighter 3/Rogue 3/Wizard 3 and my concept shoehorned to fit then
*describe* it or shut your ignorant hole for a change.

Describe your concept without using any game terms first.

Brandon

[Kaos]

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
In either case you're allowed to subtract things - in GURPS that gets
you more points to add, in D&D that gets you more credit wrt DM
judgement call.

I hate to sound like Peter Knutsen here (egads), but that leaves a
player completely subject to the whims and capabilities of the DM.

*Ahem* Mister no-optimization-by-DM-whim.
Substitute "by group agreement" as appropriate.

Huh. I can't believe I forgot to add that bit in myself.

Post by Symbol

Post by c***@yahoo.com
It
also puts a burden on the DM by forcing him to, theory, consider the
value of every class ability.

No it doesn't. Merely the cost of the things an individual wants to
change.

Quite. And it's much easier for qualitative-minded individuals than
trying to recalculate the points value and various synergies (or
synergy-like effects) that comes from, say, adding in Eidetic Memory.
Particularly when you have the burden of DM Prohibitions against
Excessive Optimization hanging over your head...

[Helpful GM]

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
In either case you're allowed to subtract things - in GURPS that gets
you more points to add, in D&D that gets you more credit wrt DM
judgement call.

I hate to sound like Peter Knutsen here (egads), but that leaves a
player completely subject to the whims and capabilities of the DM.

First, doesn't playing D&D in the first place subject one completely to
the whims & capabilities of the DM?!

But more importantly, you say it as if this were somehow a bad thing --
as if the DM were playing AGAINST you in some game where one of you
"wins" and the other "loses." Seems to me that D&D is better suited to
a more cooperative play style between DM & players.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Helpful GM
First, doesn't playing D&D in the first place subject one completely to
the whims & capabilities of the DM?!

No. See the recent thread on consensus group contracts for details.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Oh no! It's Helpful GM!

Post by Helpful GM

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
In either case you're allowed to subtract things - in GURPS that gets
you more points to add, in D&D that gets you more credit wrt DM
judgement call.

I hate to sound like Peter Knutsen here (egads), but that leaves a
player completely subject to the whims and capabilities of the DM.

First, doesn't playing D&D in the first place subject one completely to
the whims & capabilities of the DM?!

As you would know if you'd been keeping up, that is precisely what is at
issue in a lot of the longer recent threads.

In a nutshell, no, not necessarily, notwithstanding the fact that it's
the standard pabulum of GM advice sections in published games.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Helpful GM

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Kaos
In either case you're allowed to subtract things - in GURPS that gets
you more points to add, in D&D that gets you more credit wrt DM
judgement call.

I hate to sound like Peter Knutsen here (egads), but that leaves a
player completely subject to the whims and capabilities of the DM.

First, doesn't playing D&D in the first place subject one completely to
the whims & capabilities of the DM?!

Not according to a number of groups. Some group contracts
specifically limit the power and authority of the GM.

Post by Helpful GM
But more importantly, you say it as if this were somehow a bad thing --
as if the DM were playing AGAINST you in some game where one of you
"wins" and the other "loses." Seems to me that D&D is better suited to
a more cooperative play style between DM & players.

Again, this is far from the case. Some groups encourage adversarial play.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Helpful GM
But more importantly, you say it as if this were somehow a bad thing --
as if the DM were playing AGAINST you in some game where one of you
"wins" and the other "loses." Seems to me that D&D is better suited to
a more cooperative play style between DM & players.

Again, this is far from the case. Some groups encourage adversarial play.

Non sequitur. What people do with a tool doesn't determine what it's
best suited for.
--
Ed Chauvin IV

DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L, use
X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by kids,
since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using modifier G
@ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin