Making D&D grittier (You'll like this thread Parz) [Archive]

Parzival

01-19-2007, 08:25 PM

I assume you don't want to majorly reinvent the system into something unrecognisable. Just "D&D with these changes".

Nerf all transport/movement spells by raising the level significantly, or just eliminating them.

Nerf the healing spells.
There are several ways you could do this, my favorite is to have healing spells convert real damage to subdual. It's about the most minor nerf available. Naturally, you'd want to raise the level of Raise Dead, and most likely eliminate the Resurrections all together. Cure Disease and Neutralize Poison should both be bumped up a level or more.

The HP mechanic needs to be altered. <grin> There are any number of arguements to be had about how exactly would be best to do this. Some of them would also take care of the healing spell problem.

The saving throw bonuses need to normalized a bit more for higher-level play. I'd probably use the normal class progression until 10th, and then +1 to all saves/per level afterward, regardless of class.

Regardless of skill level, there needs to be a chance of failure. A roll of "1" is always a failure. If you want to add the chance for catastrophic fumbles, have it confirmed like a critical hit in combat. (Critical successes are also nice. If you're going to have one, it's nice to have the other.)

IRL, being outnumbered is a big deal. Penalties to AC and THAC0 if you're outnumbered. Bonuses to AC and THAC0 if you outnumber. (If you're already reworking the HP mechanic, damage won't need adjustment.)

Actual facing rules. Situational bonuses (such as holding the high ground) counting for more than +1.

Don't necessarily nerf magic items, but make them rare and special. With most characters having only one signature item.

A more detailed gameworld. Combat will most likely be less of a focus, and more time will be spent doing other things.

Wook

01-19-2007, 08:42 PM

Save DC's are already to low to be a real challenge after 10th level in 90% of all cases Parz. That particular change would not really make combat any more dangerous IMHO. And numbers isn't the be all end all of combat either. The "aid antoher" DC is only 10 so if dude a power attacks with his all and his 8 buddies all aid him he gets a big damage buff and a +18 to hit. I'd say that's plenty scary. (I"ve used it to good effect before too...) The PC's are noramlly supposed to represent those paragons of skill that do things like unto Miamoto Musashi and the English at Againcourt.

Origen

01-19-2007, 08:47 PM

Good ideas, Parz. Thank you for posting them.

Regardless of skill level, there needs to be a chance of failure. A roll of "1" is always a failure. If you want to add the chance for catastrophic fumbles, have it confirmed like a critical hit in combat. (Critical successes are also nice. If you're going to have one, it's nice to have the other.)

In my opinion:

I likely would not remove Resurrection or True Resurrection, simply because the latter is necessary when you are, say, disintegrated. I simply normalized the XP loss to something less dramatic, and I'd like raise the level of Resurrection and Raise Dead, while leaving True Resurrection at Level 9 where I think it belongs.

We will likely never agree on critical skill failures. I find no dramatic value in Russian Roulette. I respectfully disagree, and agree to disagree on this issue. I understand where you are coming from, more than I used to, but it's simply not my flavor preference.

IRL, being outnumbered is a big deal. Penalties to AC and THAC0 if you're outnumbered. Bonuses to AC and THAC0 if you outnumber. (If you're already reworking the HP mechanic, damage won't need adjustment.)

The problem here is that high level summoning spells, which are pretty much useless besides allowing for meat shields and the occasional "aid another" or trap springing, allow you to very easily outnumber an opponent in very short order and grant yourself an enormous bonus. It's very similar to the "bag of rats" trick in 3.0 with Combat Reflexes and Great Cleave.

Lost Soul

01-20-2007, 02:57 PM

As someone else said: buy Iron Heroes. :)

(Not necessarily to use all of the rules, but as source material.)

The feats in Iron Heroes are particularly good at eliminating the need for ever-increasing pluses on weapons and armor: your character gains options (and some powers, but mostly options) instead of just increasing his numbers all the time.

Magic remains the major issue in grittifying D&D. Scryport is a minor exploit that's easily house-ruled away, but I think the problem is really the stacking dozens of buff spells that are necessary to survive the save-or-die spells, the weird fucked up situations DMs think up because the players have access to every spell in multiples at higher levels, and the general mindset that it promotes.

What I would do:

1-Scrap the item creation feats, the metamagic feats (maybe), and the stackable versions of feats (Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, Extreme Spell Focus, Epic Spell Focus, Fucking Obsessive Spell Focus...)

2-Add in a variety of feat from Iron Heroes. Most notably the Lore feats, to give knowledge-related feats to the wizards. Frankly, you could probably just swap in the entire feat chapters from Iron Heroes.

3-Take a chainsaw to the spell list. Hack away anything that simply obsoletes a skill (i.e. Knock), anything that gives effective or real immunity to an attack form, and the Dispel Magic trump card. Also house-rules spells as needed to remove anything that effectively means "bypass encounters". You probably could just replace the spells by setting-specific bennies instead, but in the interest of keeping the changes setting-neutral, I say compensate for the shortened spell lists by giving the wizards and clerics bonus Lore feats (if you want to keep the bookish wizards stereotypes) or simply bonus feats.

4-Do the same thing to problematic class abilities: the druid's venom immunity, most of the monk class, and most of the early paladin abilities.

5-Reduce the average character wealth per level, and adapt the monsters accordingly.

6-Of course, keep a lot of supplements out of the game.

Chimaera

01-20-2007, 03:10 PM

The difficulty with making magic playable is that we compare it to its use in fiction, where story-telling dictates how it's used, as opposed to what would make sense. Tangential, but still apropos, this problem weighs heavily in superhero RPGs: if Superman were written the way a gamer would play him with his stated and listed powers, there would about a half-panel of Supes mopping up whatever villains are about and then the remaining 21 and some odd pages would be a crazy menage-a-however many chicks there are with the intitials LL in the area (a strange fetish, to be sure). If a power is made available, it will be used, at least in an RPG -- this isn't the case in fiction.

At some point, some things need to be the domain of the DM only. While I appreciate that 3.x is a better system then 2E, and furthermore, the fairly rigourous and ubiquitous systematization that 3.x uses, the mainstreaming of magic-items does much to pooch the game, IMHO. Nerfing some of the high-end spells a little (I like ****'s scryport solutions, for example), removing Wish from any mortal's spell-list, and making magic-items rare would all be parts of a good solution. A +1 sword seems stupid to me... creating magic items should be taxing and difficult and nobody should consider a +1 sword to be worth the effort. Perhaps getting rid of flat pluses and sticking with nifty properties and qualities. This would obviously require some re-tooling of creatures so that dinky, trivial magic-items aren't essential would be good. You should be able to use silver for lycanthropes, cold-iron and ingenuity.

SD Anderson

01-20-2007, 05:33 PM

What steps would you take to make D&D grittier?

For example:

Raise Teleport to an 8th level spell.

Multidimensional flight is an 8th level spell. There are lower level spells that will allow you to fly for short periods of time or in one direction with low-level maneuverability.

Part of what I'm thinking about is how to make D&D a came that genuinely scales to 20th level, or even Epic, without flying apart the way it presently does (in my opinion).

Add wounds. On ANY Crit or if damage from a blow exceeds the character's Con, the character takes a notable injury. The player decides whatt eh injury is, as long as the DM agrees it's a notable penalty to the character. This might be a -1 to an attack, reduced movement, a bloody forehead blinding an eye and penalizing spot checks and so on. Effects usually last until healing or sufficient time passes (DM's discretion).

Eiji

01-20-2007, 09:43 PM

Well I recommend sandpaper, and perhaps some steel wool. Replacing the dice with rough wooden blocks in the shape of dice also work, but may cause splinters. If a player gets a splinter this can be considered a critical fumble and their character will take appropriate damage. It's good for immersing the players into the game.

Other ways to increase grit is to make sure players eat only grits (Editor's Note: Due to a typo, it used to say "can eat only brits"). You can also try taking cookie crumbs and rubbing them over the table and into spaces while playing. For extra effort, dump crumbs down their pants.

Grit levels will be over 9000, I guarantee it.

Dr. Mercury

01-20-2007, 10:20 PM

Make crits count for something. They do the weapon's damage multiplier in CON ability damage--e.g., arrows do 3 CON, a scythe 4--and always do the maximum possible hit point damage.

Cranky Dog

01-20-2007, 10:59 PM

Make crits count for something. They do the weapon's damage multiplier in CON ability damage--e.g., arrows do 3 CON, a scythe 4--and always do the maximum possible hit point damage.
I like it!

I'd even go so far as saying a crit could do any kind of ability damage, maybe adapted to weapon type.

Descriptive examples:
STR lost through a a blow damaging muscle tissue.
DEX lost after getting hit in the knee caps or crushed fingers.
CON lost through a punctured lung.
INT lost through a blow to the head that makes concentrating and remembering things a bit harder.
WIS again lost through a blow to the head making you punch drunk.
CHA lost through a painful scar, leaving you both disfigured and with less of a presence as all you seem to think about is that ache.

Cranky Dog
"I have a gritty combat opinion, international!"

Dr. Mercury

01-21-2007, 04:25 AM

I like it!
So do I. That's why it's a house rule. :D

At low to mid levels, it's fugly--even with Luck Points as a counter-balance. At high non-epic, it can still mess someone up.

I also have a house rule where, if you roll a natural 20 to confirm a natural 20 crit threat, you can then roll again to determine if it's a devastating critical. A third natural 20 and the CON damage is then the square of the crit multiplier--e.g., a scimitar does 4 CON; an arrow from a longbow, 9 CON. A fourth natural 20 and it's the cube of the crit multiplier, although I've never seen that happen in all the years I've had the house rule.

I also apply the rule to coups de grace--except all you have to do is keep rolling within the crit range, thus making anyone with keen weapons or the Improved Critical feat an obscene death dealer. :D

Cranky Dog

01-21-2007, 10:52 AM

I also have a house rule where, if you roll a natural 20 to confirm a natural 20 crit threat, you can then roll again to determine if it's a devastating critical. A third natural 20 and the CON damage is then the square of the crit multiplier--e.g., a scimitar does 4 CON; an arrow from a longbow, 9 CON. A fourth natural 20 and it's the cube of the crit multiplier, although I've never seen that happen in all the years I've had the house rule.
This makes picks and scythes at x4 potential god killers!

Cranky Dog
"I have a devastating critical opinion, international!"

silverwhisper

01-21-2007, 10:54 AM

meh. the best way to make the game grittier is for the numbers to be smaller, end of story.

ed

Magnus Bergqvist

01-21-2007, 11:06 AM

This makes picks and scythes at x4 potential god killers!

Cranky Dog
"I have a devastating critical opinion, international!"

Which is why you don't want to be on the wrong side of an mob of angry peasants... =^_^=

/Magnus

BattleNymph

01-21-2007, 11:43 AM

I would have imagined the ways to make it grittier would have all been in atmoshphere and role play. Hmmm..

silverwhisper

01-21-2007, 11:48 AM

the resultant retorts promise to be quite epic, BN. :>

Cranky Dog

01-21-2007, 11:59 AM

I would have imagined the ways to make it grittier would have all been in atmoshphere and role play. Hmmm..
No, no, no! It's all about pissing off the players, err... I mean characters. ;)

I agree that making a game grittier is not the same thing as making it deadlier, there's a limit on how much grit players can take before it becomes tedious.

I don't necessarily want my fantasy character to be bothered to gather dry wood in the rain while trying to build a fire in near-freezing temperature while we hear wolves howl all night long that prevent us from sleeping properly.

Sure, it's gritty, but how often are we really going to do it without the characters taking an early retirement and become those 5th level NPCs you see everywhere? People usually just simplify things by saying it's a nice day/night and everything is hunky dory until the first random encounter.

Cranky Dog
"I have a gritty opinion, international!"

Parzival

01-21-2007, 12:53 PM

<shrug> System matters.

The D&D system is scaled for high-power level play, and really isn't condusive to an atmospheric, consistant world.
Seriously, you can do "gritty" better with Hero system than D&D.

Dr. Mercury

01-21-2007, 03:30 PM

I would have imagined the ways to make it grittier would have all been in atmoshphere and role play. Hmmm..
You'd think, but mechanics and metagaming will trump that--even among seasoned players. Hallmarks of the medieval-fantasy genre--sieges and ambushes--don't work in a world where transmute rock to mud and cloudkill eventually will factor in. I lack the time and energy to micro-manage spell lists. Some at the table are role-players, others are roll-players, and one needs to adjust to the lowest common denominator.

When a 15th-level fighter laughs at a gauntlet of archers on the high ground on either side, you know the system is broken. Players whose characters should normally be afraid will just metagame, hence the house rule where a crit can strip 54 points off a 175-HP front-line fighter in one shot.

(Also, I allow for ranged flanking, and I equip about half my NPC archers with Rogue or Scout levels. This means that I could also roll 3d6 to 7d6 on top of that 54-point crit. If you're also in melee, are you paying attention to the man trying to gut you, or are you watching the countryside?)

I love the Hero System, but I've got players who don't. I lack the time and energy to go looking for a party of players interested in Hero Fantasy, the books for which I no longer own anyway. Sometimes, you're just stuck with the system and have to compensate in ways that make players metagame the way you want them to.

Detritus

01-21-2007, 05:43 PM

I would have imagined the ways to make it grittier would have all been in atmoshphere and role play. Hmmm..
This is not a very specific answer. HOW would you do it through atmosphere and role play.

Wook

01-21-2007, 06:36 PM

meh. the best way to make the game grittier is for the numbers to be smaller, end of story.

I disagree. The numbers could, IMHO, be larger and the game could still be grittier. The lack of grit results from absolutes IMHO and by removing them things get much more down and dirty.

silverwhisper

01-21-2007, 07:03 PM

****, how is it possible to call a game featuring PCs w/ 400 HPs gritty? seriously?

Origen

01-21-2007, 07:29 PM

I would have imagined the ways to make it grittier would have all been in atmoshphere and role play. Hmmm..

Those can't be codified, however, and are entirely dependent on the individuals characters and the campaign.

Atmosphere and roleplaying are certainly important, but it is simply impossible for a campaign to be gritty when there is literally 0% chance of a 1st level chararacter or even a 10th level character of inflicting any harm on a 20th level character. Abstract hit points are less gritty than critical hit charts. A game is less gritty when your high-level cleric can literally wipe away any ill effect, be it poison, or a lost limb, or disease, or curse and raise you from the dead even if your entire body has been disintegrated and the dust cast to the four winds.

As someone else said, the system matters. Flavor and roleplaying can only do so much.

Parzival

01-21-2007, 09:55 PM

I think it's important to distinguish between mood and grit here.

D&D *can* be extremely dark and dangerous. That's atmosphere. But it really can't be gritty.

Org invited me to a discussion about this (on another forum) quite a while back. I still have my thoughts saved on my hard-drive.
First, I think I need to note that grim and gritty are independent of each other. It's quite possible to have a grim game that isn't gritty (as previously noted), and equally possible to have a gritty game that isn't grim.

Nearly all my games are gritty, but only a few are grim. So I'll focus on what a game needs, IMO, to be gritty. Gritty isn’t merely a power level, although it involves that. It’s an expectation of how the world works.

The game system must model reality. I cannot overemphasize this point. <grin> Which is a good thing, because I'm about to beat it to death.

A sword through the heart, is still a sword through the heart. How it happened is immaterial. Whether it was thrust from behind by a skilled thief, from in front by a callow youth, or merely a sword swallowing exhibition coinciding with a case of the hiccups, the result is the same. A sharp implement designed for killing people is something to be careful of.

Physics must relate to reality. It doesn't matter how tough you are, jumping off a 100' ft cliff onto sharp rocks is a bad idea.
There is only so much that the human body is physically capable of. Slap an Olympic-level long jumper in armor, put a loaded knapsack on his back, and see how far he can jump. Don't expect your character to be able to do better.

A point of diminishing returns. Mastering something is hard. There comes a point where you are expending more and more effort to achieve smaller and smaller gains in competence.

A chance of failure. It doesn't matter how sneaky your thief is, he's human and fallible. Attempting to sneak past a series of alert guards (regardless of respective levels) should be a very tense episode.

Consequences must be lasting. Death is the most obvious, but maiming, appearance, sanity, reputation, wealth and loved ones all fall under the same requirements.

No man is an island. The character isn't often an orphan, and even if he was, *somebody* raised him. He depends on others, and others depend on him in turn. He probably has a job, rent, bills, and hope of getting both a wife and a permanent place to live. <shrug> Characters that willingly drop everything to "go adventuring" probably aren't right in the head, are actively running away from something, or have a very compelling reason.

The rules applying to PCs and NPCs must be the same. For instance, some systems, it's amazingly hard to rationalize what class and level such a “stock” character as a bartender should be, what skills he possesses, at what level of mastery, and by what mechanisms he improves them. It's instead, simply assumed that the barkeep is of little interest, and certainly that nobody would ever want to *play* one.

The gameworld must be internally consistent. I'll pick on D&D for an example. Monks wield "peasant weapons", but the peasants themselves are specifically referred to as "European peasants". So why are Monks using eastern martial arts weapons? Why not flails, pitchforks, scythes, sickles, daggers, and bills?

The necessities of life cannot be ignored. Take food and water with you when you go adventuring. You’ll need them. Don’t expect to be able to sleep just anywhere. And be careful with your money. Getting more can be extremely difficult. Try to avoid people dying of strange diseases. And mysterious men rarely, if ever, go into a bar looking to hire you for some uncertain purpose only darkly hinted at.

You aren’t a pawn of fate. You may have delusions in that regard, but your choices, and their consequences, are all up to you. Likewise, don’t expect the gods to intervene on your behalf.

You will not be saving the world. If the world required saving every X years by a party of adventurers, it would long since have been destroyed. Kingdoms may fall. Genocides may occur. But the world will keep right on spinning, and not even notice.

Good and evil are fluid concepts. You may be able to detect when somebody wishes you ill, but that’s about it. A person can be said to be “good” based upon their actions, and very well may be. But there is no way to know for certain, and good people can strongly believe diametrically opposed things. Or do incredibly harmful things out of the best of intentions.

Encounters will not scale as the party increases in power. After adventuring for a while, you’re not going to suddenly stop encountering goblins and start encountering gnolls instead. At least, not without some compelling reason for this to be the case.

Magical travel is the stuff of legends. Don’t expect to ever own a flying carpet, and forget about going Bamf.

Life is a trade-off. Becoming good at one thing, means not getting good at something else. Powerful magic will have equally powerful drawbacks/costs. One-Eye’s spear took years of crafting. Nearly every magical item mentioned in the Silmarillion has a cost associated with it, but few more than the sword Anglachel/Gurthang.

Being good at something is its own drawback. If you are focused on fighting, you will probably enter fights you shouldn’t. If you’re good at talking yourself out of trouble, you will probably keep talking long after you should have started running. If you are good at magic, you will tend to overlook mundane solutions.

Being outnumbered is a very bad thing. Avoid it at all costs.

Being ambushed is a very bad thing. Avoid it at all costs.

<shrug> As you can tell, level-based game systems, and D&D in particular, don’t readily lend themselves to this type of gameworld. But a skill-based system like CoC/Runequest’s BRP, CORPS or GURPS works wonderfully.
<shrug> I enjoy D&D. At least, up to the point where I'm unable to willingly suspend disbelief. But it can't be made gritty through role-play or atmosphere.

Lost Soul

01-21-2007, 10:43 PM

I agree with some of Parz' points, and disagree with some:

The necessity of a chance of failure is something I disagree with. There are tasks a trained character *can't* fail at. Trained doctors and nurses simply don't fail at suturing a wound.

Applying the same rules to PCs and NPCs simply doesn't have a point. Let's be honest, even in the grittiest game ever... who wants to play the non-adventuring barkeep? As far as I know, no system does it (GURPS technically uses the same system, but PCs get, what, five times as many character points as Joe Genero? IMO, this isn't really playing under the same rules.

I disagree that the game world must be internally consistent for a game to be gritty. A game world must be internally consistent, period.

IMO, the necessities of life should be ignored whenever possible, for the same reason that bodily functions should also be ignored: at some point, you have to stop the bookkeeping and get on with the gaming. It's supposed to be a gritty game, not an exercise in bookkeeping. I'd instead substitute a replacement rule: while food, water, equipment repair, and so on are automatically bought and the money deducted from the PCs beltpouch, the acquisition of wealth shouldn't come as a by-product of adventuring. If the goal of an adventure is not to find the lost gold of Bob the Tyrant, then at the end of the adventure you won't have any significant additionnal wealth.

Saving the world doesn't automatically make a game non-gritty, if it's the final ending event of the campaign. If it happens on a regular basis, that's another thing.

I disagree with the fluidity of good and evil, because I'm not a moral relativist. I agree that Detect Evil automatically makes a game non-gritty.

Magical travel may be the stuff of legends, but occasionnally legends have a basis of truth. That said, you might find a magic carpet. You won't find a dealer in magic carpets in every town, and if you find a magic carpet, everyone and their mother will be trying to get it from you.

Trade-offs are good. Trade-offs on everything is bad. Sometimes you get a magic sword, and wonders of wonders, it isn't cursed. It's probably not a flaming greatsword that shoots beams of power and irons your shirts, though.

Landis

01-21-2007, 11:11 PM

I like it!

I'd even go so far as saying a crit could do any kind of ability damage, maybe adapted to weapon type.

Descriptive examples:
STR lost through a a blow damaging muscle tissue.
DEX lost after getting hit in the knee caps or crushed fingers.
CON lost through a punctured lung.
INT lost through a blow to the head that makes concentrating and remembering things a bit harder.
WIS again lost through a blow to the head making you punch drunk.
CHA lost through a painful scar, leaving you both disfigured and with less of a presence as all you seem to think about is that ache.

Cranky Dog
"I have a gritty combat opinion, international!"

While I really do like this, I have to ask if we're talking permanent ability damage here or not. I can't imagine players being to happy with losing two or three points of any given attribute forever, especially given that crits do tend to happen more often that you'd expect. About the only way I can think of to make this not a complete party-killer is to either a) say that all weapons only threaten on a natural 20, or b) have at least some of the damage be temporary.

Dr. Mercury

01-21-2007, 11:33 PM

While I really do like this, I have to ask if we're talking permanent ability damage here or not. I can't imagine players being to happy with losing two or three points of any given attribute forever, especially given that crits do tend to happen more often that you'd expect. About the only way I can think of to make this not a complete party-killer is to either a) say that all weapons only threaten on a natural 20, or b) have at least some of the damage be temporary.
It's not permanent if they survive the encounter. Characters recover ability damage at the rate of 1 per day. The weapon in question has the crit threat range listed in the book. Player characters have luck points--not unlike Action Points from d20 Modern--but the crits still take their toll.

I've been able to force parties to retreat, which is almost unheard of in D&D.

Parzival

01-22-2007, 01:11 AM

The necessity of a chance of failure is something I disagree with. There are tasks a trained character *can't* fail at. Trained doctors and nurses simply don't fail at suturing a wound. I disagree with that statement. They fail, but the failure isn't immediately apperant. (Unless they crit fail and sneeze while stitching). Stiches can and do pull out prematurely.
Applying the same rules to PCs and NPCs simply doesn't have a point. Let's be honest, even in the grittiest game ever... who wants to play the non-adventuring barkeep? As far as I know, no system does it (GURPS technically uses the same system, but PCs get, what, five times as many character points as Joe Genero? IMO, this isn't really playing under the same rules.I'm going to quibble here. At the "basic" power level, competant adult NPCs by rule have 3/5 of the character points of a PC or more. (Not that all NPCS are competant or adults.) <shrug> This normally assures that most NPCs will be better than the PCs at something.
A barkeep would actually be an interesting character to play. He's got a lot of contacts, probably several favors to collect, good social skills, has a very good idea of who is doing (or has done) what to whom, and is free from his job to poke around during normal business hours. He wouldn't be a combatant, but he *would* be an interesting and useful PC.
I disagree with the fluidity of good and evil, because I'm not a moral relativist. I agree that Detect Evil automatically makes a game non-gritty.Neither am I a moral relativist. (Big red firetruck "duh" there.)
But the question "What is good?" is one of the all-time great conundrums. It's definately something worth exploring in-game.
<grin> That draconian overlord probably doesn't consider himself evil, and probably believes that he's working for the greater good. <shrug> He might even be right.

Whoever asked, yes, the original discussion was over on EnWorld.

Wook

01-22-2007, 03:20 PM

A chance of failure. It doesn't matter how sneaky your thief is, he's human and fallible. Attempting to sneak past a series of alert guards (regardless of respective levels) should be a very tense episode.

IMHO this is only relevant for dramatic pruposes. Thus the suture comment, tieing of shoes, use of a microwave, etc... There are some skills and situations where failure just doesn't happen.

Consequences must be lasting. Death is the most obvious, but maiming, appearance, sanity, reputation, wealth and loved ones all fall under the same requirements.

In our non-fantasy world we have the means to mitigate, reduce, repair, and otherwise avoid the vast majority of physical complications. In a fantasy setting where there are magical sources of healing available this does not necessarily have to be the case where injury is concerned. I agree that death should suck but all that happens in a game where death is final is that the PC's don't do anything daring or heroic. My experience, on both sides of the screen, is that they just skulk around an avoid any comobat at all costs. Even the ones that are heavily stacked in their favor. It's great big kill joy.

No man is an island. The character isn't often an orphan, and even if he was, *somebody* raised him. He depends on others, and others depend on him in turn. He probably has a job, rent, bills, and hope of getting both a wife and a permanent place to live. <shrug> Characters that willingly drop everything to "go adventuring" probably aren't right in the head, are actively running away from something, or have a very compelling reason.

These are all story elements that don't necessarily have to be represented by some game mechanic. A good GM will get well rounded characters out of his players in and of himself.

The rules applying to PCs and NPCs must be the same. For instance, some systems, it's amazingly hard to rationalize what class and level such a “stock” character as a bartender should be, what skills he possesses, at what level of mastery, and by what mechanisms he improves them. It's instead, simply assumed that the barkeep is of little interest, and certainly that nobody would ever want to *play* one.

If the players are just a batch of toothpicks in amongst a factory of toothpicks then sure. OTOH if the characters are "the heroes of the age" or otherwise intended to be different and/or a cut above the average, being heroes after all, then this isn't necesssarily something that *has* to be and it doesn't have to be 100% consistent. For story purposes there are characters are just unimportant background filler that at best exist as a pure stereotype and usually aren't even part of the story such much as just a piece of window dressing.

The necessities of life cannot be ignored. Take food and water with you when you go adventuring. You’ll need them. Don’t expect to be able to sleep just anywhere. And be careful with your money. Getting more can be extremely difficult. Try to avoid people dying of strange diseases. And mysterious men rarely, if ever, go into a bar looking to hire you for some uncertain purpose only darkly hinted at.

Depending on the game of choice a well prepared group of characters will either have a magical means of sustaining themselves or have the requisite skills to sustain themselves. IMHO this sort of thing just detracts from telling the story. Other than Murgen always saying who was making dinner it doesn't exist as an interesting story element outside of specific instances where our heroes are threatened with starvation/dehydration.

You aren’t a pawn of fate. You may have delusions in that regard, but your choices, and their consequences, are all up to you. Likewise, don’t expect the gods to intervene on your behalf.

You will not be saving the world. If the world required saving every X years by a party of adventurers, it would long since have been destroyed. Kingdoms may fall. Genocides may occur. But the world will keep right on spinning, and not even notice.

Once again these are story elements. I fail to see how they have any bearing on the ruleset at all. If you don't want to run a game that runs on that level of heroism then someplace like Sanctuary is for you.

Good and evil are fluid concepts. You may be able to detect when somebody wishes you ill, but that’s about it. A person can be said to be “good” based upon their actions, and very well may be. But there is no way to know for certain, and good people can strongly believe diametrically opposed things. Or do incredibly harmful things out of the best of intentions.

I largely agree but by the same token having some representation of pure good, evil, law, chaos, creation, destruction, life, or death in the world is useful for story purporses. You mightent not be able to tell if that guy on the other side of the bar is good or evil but it's a lot easier to figure out when when Sauron or The Limper is the one on the other side of the bar.

Encounters will not scale as the party increases in power. After adventuring for a while, you’re not going to suddenly stop encountering goblins and start encountering gnolls instead. At least, not without some compelling reason for this to be the case.

In any game system I've ever seen this exists as at least a potential applicaiton of the rules. I know for fact it exists in a 3.x context and can be built into pretty much ever other system I've worked with. What it requires is a thorough understanding of whatever rule set you happen to be using.

Magical travel is the stuff of legends. Don’t expect to ever own a flying carpet, and forget about going Bamf.

Once again this is a statement that is tied to setting and story. Even GURPS magic allows for rapid movement and long distance teleportation. (In fact a mage that focuses primarily upon the movement college in GURPS is going to be both rich and powerful.) IF a particular setting doesn't have these magics readily available then don't make them available. If it does then you have a matter of the world's internal consistency to keep in mind.

Life is a trade-off. Becoming good at one thing, means not getting good at something else. Powerful magic will have equally powerful drawbacks/costs. One-Eye’s spear took years of crafting. Nearly every magical item mentioned in the Silmarillion has a cost associated with it, but few more than the sword Anglachel/Gurthang.

The Simariliion is but one book amongst many. Artifacts do indeed often have downsides that are equal in some way to the upside derrived from them. OTOH the healing droughts from "The Gaurdian of the Flame" series were cheap easy and readily available. As for the rest - well duh. I don't know of a rule set where everyone gets to be good at everything outside the realm of extreme power gaming... (As doable in 3.x as it is in GURPS, or WW, or Champions.)

Being good at something is its own drawback. If you are focused on fighting, you will probably enter fights you shouldn’t. If you’re good at talking yourself out of trouble, you will probably keep talking long after you should have started running. If you are good at magic, you will tend to overlook mundane solutions.

All matters of story and roleplaying. I fail to see how this factors into the ruleset at all.

Being outnumbered is a very bad thing. Avoid it at all costs.

Being ambushed is a very bad thing. Avoid it at all costs.

Very bas is much different from "always fatal even to gods" and going to far overbaord interferes with telling a heroic story. The Black Company routinely, even when working on the "squad" level, found themselves ambushed and outnumbered and there are plenty of historical examples of a vastly outnumbered force, or a lone individual, taking on overwhelming odds and if not winning outright at least making a stand of such heroism and ferocity so as to endure through history for hundreds, or thousdands of years after their time has passed.

<shrug> As you can tell, level-based game systems, and D&D in particular, don’t readily lend themselves to this type of gameworld. But a skill-based system like CoC/Runequest’s BRP, CORPS or GURPS works wonderfully.

You're understanding of the 3.x ruleset is flawed then because if I wanted to I could run a wonderfully gritty game with a world such as you describe with very little difficulty straight out of the SRD.

Origen

01-22-2007, 03:55 PM

IMHO this is only relevant for dramatic pruposes. Thus the suture comment, tieing of shoes, use of a microwave, etc... There are some skills and situations where failure just doesn't happen.

I concur. Skill check failures become a game of 1s, and sooner or later you start asking yourself what value this adds to the game. Having a 20th level rogue slip on a banana peel does nothing for me, nor does it add tension. Plying your skill against an equal, or greater risks, is an adventure.

In our non-fantasy world we have the means to mitigate, reduce, repair, and otherwise avoid the vast majority of physical complications. In a fantasy setting where there are magical sources of healing available this does not necessarily have to be the case where injury is concerned. I agree that death should suck but all that happens in a game where death is final is that the PC's don't do anything daring or heroic. My experience, on both sides of the screen, is that they just skulk around an avoid any comobat at all costs. Even the ones that are heavily stacked in their favor. It's great big kill joy.

And, in fact, it is my experience that even when means of bringing back characters from the dead, it still sucks. I've seen players throw dice, or walk away from the table even when they KNOW they can bring the character back.

Permanent death is a very real threat in my games, and Raise Dead doesn't even become a possibility until mid-levels unless the players are willing to undergo some kind of quest. In my online game, at one point, Mouser's character Ebony was torn apart and carried off by cannibals who intended to eat his flesh to gain his strength. I created a non-magic Masai ranger for Mouser to play who tracked the cannibals to the graveyard where they were performing the ritual. The energy and magic released by the interrupted ritual raised many corpses as undead, causing two concurrent fights to ensue. It was great fun.

If the players are just a batch of toothpicks in amongst a factory of toothpicks then sure. OTOH if the characters are "the heroes of the age" or otherwise intended to be different and/or a cut above the average, being heroes after all, then this isn't necesssarily something that *has* to be and it doesn't have to be 100% consistent. For story purposes there are characters are just unimportant background filler that at best exist as a pure stereotype and usually aren't even part of the story such much as just a piece of window dressing.

That, and I really don't care to play Shopkeep: The Accounting. In a populated multiverse, it is simply impossible for a book to tell me what a barkeep in a high-end bar in the City of Brass will look like, or act like. D&D isn't designed to tell me everything. It's designed to give me the tools to play the game.

Depending on the game of choice a well prepared group of characters will either have a magical means of sustaining themselves or have the requisite skills to sustain themselves. IMHO this sort of thing just detracts from telling the story. Other than Murgen always saying who was making dinner it doesn't exist as an interesting story element outside of specific instances where our heroes are threatened with starvation/dehydration.

Starvation is a dramatic device. So is diease. So is overland travel. They exist only as elements and NPCs in my campaign. Part of the benefits of a longterm campaign is overcoming challenges, and ascending the scale of heroism. It adds nothing to my game that a 20th level warrior can get a splinter and die of blood poisoning, or that he has to be afraid of a group of peasants with pitchforks.

Origen

01-22-2007, 04:19 PM

Once again this is a statement that is tied to setting and story. Even GURPS magic allows for rapid movement and long distance teleportation. (In fact a mage that focuses primarily upon the movement college in GURPS is going to be both rich and powerful.) IF a particular setting doesn't have these magics readily available then don't make them available. If it does then you have a matter of the world's internal consistency to keep in mind.

I don't like scry-port. We all agree on that. I have no problem putting teleport as a higher-level spell, but that's because I want the game to scale well, and not because I want to always deny that device to my players. Without Scry, Teleport is simply another way to get somewhere you know well, or a means for a wizard to get out of a grapple.

The Simariliion is but one book amongst many. Artifacts do indeed often have downsides that are equal in some way to the upside derrived from them. OTOH the healing droughts from "The Gaurdian of the Flame" series were cheap easy and readily available.

Did Anduril screw over Aragorn for possessing it? Did Glamdring screw over Gandalf? Did Excalibur turn on Arthur?

No. Cursed items and artifacts with drawbacks are good story seeds, and an important and necessary part of any GMs tool kit. But insisting that every good thing have a drawback or screw you over in some way becomes tiresome.

Very bas is much different from "always fatal even to gods" and going to far overbaord interferes with telling a heroic story. The Black Company routinely, even when working on the "squad" level, found themselves ambushed and outnumbered and there are plenty of historical examples of a vastly outnumbered force, or a lone individual, taking on overwhelming odds and if not winning outright at least making a stand of such heroism and ferocity so as to endure through history for hundreds, or thousdands of years after their time has passed.

Achilles, Hector, Beowulf, Samson, Goliath, the mighty men of David recorded in 2 Samuel 23:8 and 1 Chronicles 11. Literature is populated with warriors from history who were simply without peer.

I have no problem with Parz's gaming philosophy except that he never seems to believe anything without the concurrent belief that it somehow represents an eternal truth. It does not. In myth, epic, heroic fantasy and what literary scholars used to call romance literature, there have always been heroes who could wipe away lesser warriors on the battlefield by the score.

You're understanding of the 3.x ruleset is flawed then because if I wanted to I could run a wonderfully gritty game with a world such as you describe with very little difficulty straight out of the SRD.

So could I. I agree with Parz that the default setting on D&D 3.X is high fantasy, high magic and light on the grit. That can be changed without too much fuss, however.

Wook

01-22-2007, 04:26 PM

How to run a gritty game in D&D 3.x -

Point buy attributes - 26 pts (I can have an 18 and 5 10's or a more well rounded character that isn't as single in focus.)

Discard the wealth table, treasure per encounter, and general idea that characters get items. Over the course of a 20 level game magic items that are permanent are to be rare. At 20th level if the character can count the items on more than one hand then the GM did something wrong. Expendable magic items, potions and scrolls in particular, should come and go.

1st level must be from an NPC class and adept is not available. Your character had a life before becoming a hero. This is how you define what that life was. (This also takes some of the steam off of what spellcasters are capable of as they're forever lagging a step behind the fighter, ranger, barbarian, and rogue.)

The opposiition will consist of primarily humanoids. Other beasties out of the SRD should be rare. As the PC's advance just add class levels to the bad guys as appropriate to keep the scale roughly in line. The level of exoticness should go up a little as the party get's closer to a climatic BBEG fight but should never be over the top. (As in maybe the occasional humanoid with an exotic PRC or an unusual or notable template. The lieutenants of the BBEG might even be Outsiders of some stripe that he's summoned to serve him but above all the exotic needs to be exotic so that its impact as such is not lost.)

World considerations - Your spell list, available feats, and available PRC's all need to be tailored to fit the world and the feel you are going for. The scryport nerf I listed above is more than a little useful in this regard and certain PRCs just shouldn't be available. The archmage and arcane trickster immediately spring to mind as examples of this. Oddly enough in a game such as this absolute immunities aren't nearly the problem they normally are because having that immunity for an encounter represents both a significant expenditure of resources and a matter of tactical planning on the party's part. (And unless the GM gives such an item to someone then there will never be a 24/7 always on immunity.)

Landis

01-22-2007, 09:56 PM

It's not permanent if they survive the encounter. Characters recover ability damage at the rate of 1 per day. The weapon in question has the crit threat range listed in the book. Player characters have luck points--not unlike Action Points from d20 Modern--but the crits still take their toll.

I've been able to force parties to retreat, which is almost unheard of in D&D.

Groovy. I just wanted to make sure we weren't talking about permanent attribute loss. Given that you're treating it as ability damage instead of drain, I'd have to agree that nerfing the crit ranges is unnecessary.

This'll be getting rolled into the house rules tonight. :mischievous:

Grendel

01-22-2007, 10:02 PM

Add a crit chart table. A table of bad things that can happen when you give or receive a crit. It was one of my favorite things about the Rolemaster system and one I immediately added to my homebrew. It would improve D&D tremendously. The idea of getting a crit on a troll or other large creature or exprerienced human with lots of experience and skill, is less than exciting. Wow, so I do some extra damage. An extra dent in the can isn'y very exciting. But unexpectedly slicing the entire can in half is cool.

Wook

01-22-2007, 10:14 PM

Crit charts beg for hit locations beg for called shot rules and while they would add a certain element of highly random excitement to the game they'd also add an element of complexity to the combat system. (And once you add crit charts it's like the narrow end of the wedge for rules creep. It's not like umpteen billion PRC's, feats, and spells don't already do that but those things don't slow gameplay down either...) Just imagine a powergamed character who's speciality, like unto a rogue, is hitting those soft spots for scads of extra damage and insta-killz. It may sound cool but the number of balance issues involved is scary... Personally I think part of the job of the GM is to add appropriate flavor text when your character crits for OMFG HE JUST KILLED THE TARRASQUE amounts of damage in a single hit.

Grendel

01-22-2007, 10:58 PM

Crit charts beg for hit locations beg for called shot rules
Not in Rolemaster. You can't call your shot and you certainly can't have it coincide with a related crit. You roll on a D% chart with modifiers based on items and other factors.

and while they would add a certain element of highly random excitement to the game they'd also add an element of complexity to the combat system

In Rolemaster, it is not random at all. The more skilled you are (the higher your "to hit" equivalent), the more likely you are to get a crit. And it isn't complex at all. It is simply one extra roll to see what the result of the crit is. And it is well worth it for the excitement and fun it adds to the game. There is no doubt that a hammer critical of "your blow strikes the forehead and drives the bone into the brain, instantly killing the foe and sending a gory splotch of blood and bits back out at you for 6 feet out in a 180 degree arc" is vastly more fun and entertaining than "ummm, yup, you did double damage". And unless I'm wrong, a roll needs to be made to see if the critical actually happens in D&D. So the complexity level is the same.

Just imagine a powergamed character who's speciality, like unto a rogue, is hitting those soft spots for scads of extra damage and insta-killz. It may sound cool but the number of balance issues involved is scary.

The balance problem already exists. The crit chart would actually even out the field. Instead of needing three feats and four class-based specialty skills in order to have a chance to kill someone in one shot, anyone with lots of fighting skill can do it. And that's how it should be. Precision strikes against an unwary opponent are one thing, but the idea of a thief sneaking around a combat and sticking his dagger in the hearts and necks of opponents (who are moving about wildly in an attempt to kill opponents) at will is pretty absurd.

Personally I think part of the job of the GM is to add appropriate flavor text when your character crits for OMFG HE JUST KILLED THE TARRASQUE amounts of damage in a single hit.

I agree. But I prefer to see, in addition, a mechanism that allows a PC in melee to kill his target by means other than running down his hit points to less than zero. The rules are unrealistic and anti-climactic as they stand.

Chimaera

01-22-2007, 11:10 PM

Grendel, what do you think of HARP?

Chimaera

01-22-2007, 11:11 PM

One of my all-time favourite crits, from the MERP Shock-Bolt crit list:

"Head no longer available for use..."

BattleNymph

01-22-2007, 11:21 PM

One of my all-time favourite crits, from the MERP Shock-Bolt crit list:

"Head no longer available for use..."

Now that's sweet.

Kalzazz

01-23-2007, 12:24 AM

I remember playing Earthdawn using Rolemaster critical charts

A good (and amazingly gory) time was had by all, but the game went from 'Remarkably deadly' to 'Absolute bloodbath'

Wook

01-23-2007, 12:52 AM

I remember playing Earthdawn using Rolemaster critical charts

A good (and amazingly gory) time was had by all, but the game went from 'Remarkably deadly' to 'Absolute bloodbath'

Earthdawn does not need crit charts!!! Damn skippy it was a bloodbath.

Kalzazz

01-23-2007, 01:11 AM

Earthdawn is a very epic system, with players being loaded out with flashy tricks and cool powers, and the ability to literally take a sword through the heart and keep ticking

But it is also a spectacularly brutal and lethal system as well but somewhat on the slow side

Fortunately, I have house ruled it such that the game speeds up, but as a consequence the lethality rate has gone up to

And then we added crit charts

However, I have never been much a fan of the 'death is that big of deal' style of DMing, I find the game much more enjoyable when its a major challenge and the party may lose 3/4s of its members in the process or may be wiped out semi regularly

Ive never been fond of games where the issue never seems to be in doubht that the party will win, the only question is whether 1 or maybe 2 of them might get hurt/killed in the process

Grendel

01-23-2007, 02:14 AM

Grendel, what do you think of HARP?

I think it's a damn fine beer. I'd rather have a guinness most days, but sometimes ... oh ... actually I never saw it or played it. We were strictly playing in Tolkien's Middle Earth using the standard Rolemaster rules.

Parzival

01-23-2007, 03:35 AM

Kalzazz

01-23-2007, 05:39 AM

SD Anderson

01-23-2007, 06:15 AM

DnD has (in general) a remarkably simplistic combat system

Person knows foe has AC X, so person can merrilly roll away there 4 or 5 or so attacks, know which ones are hit, and roll damage. Then announce they meted out Y damage

GURPS
Person swings! They know there skill, so they can tell if a potential hit or not. Unless its a ranged attack, then have to first determine Target size, range, and movement for the modifier to that
If the person has a potential hit, then control passes to the target to roll there defense.
Then, if it turns out there is a hit, the first person will roll damage
Damage is then compared to armor, and damage past armor is multiplied by some factor and then taken
After damage is taken the subjects status must be assessed. Do they need to roll for Stun, Knockdown, Unconsciousness or Death? Sometimes they need to roll for all four in one blow!

Apples to oranges. Your "In general" remark makes this an unfair comparison. It means you disregard the combplexities of the D&D combat system for simplicity but use every optional rule in GURPS to make it look more difficult.

In D&D you have buff spells, poinsons other modifiers from bardic music to on down changing the 'solid' numbersYou have not one AC but a regular AC, a flat footed AC, a ranged Touch aC and a touch AC. Techincally the tou touched ACs are suposed to be the same number but the attacker's stat modifiers are different so the to hit number is different.

Each attack within a round has a different attack bonus. In general the player in a fast paced comat has to stop and do mental arithmetic. "Just subtract fieve" is less simple under the press of a fast paced game. By contrast here in GURPS 4th a rapic strike uses the same numbers for each attack. (normally -6 on both) And -4 in previous editions. . You also have DR in D&D and it's less simple than DR in GURPS as it varies against atttack types.

Then you have the "Mother May I?/Simon says!" nature of AoO based combat where your actions can be held in stasis to let the defender or someone near the defender act and possibly negate the action you took.

I'm not getting into a pissing contest on complexity here. Just pointing out that D&D is by no means whatsoever a simple set of combat rules.

In any event we are drifting out of the terirtory of this thread's topic. If you want to take this up further, please move it to another thread and let this one go on it's own merry way.

Kalzazz

01-23-2007, 07:19 AM

Hmm. I didnt realize any of these things I mentioned were optional rules. I didnt say anything about hit location or blow through or crippling, I was assuming just a generic locationless attack. I do realize now that I have checked through the Basic Combat Rules for GURPS 3e that I made an error concerning ranged combat, in Basic Combat Rules you assume something is nearby and no modifiers. So, ignore that part of my previous post

But, let me rephrase, basically, DnD is simple not based on calculation simplicity, but rather, simple based on a general lack of back and forth. You hit X times and mete out Y damage, and thats that. The other person subtracts Y hitpoints away.

Same way for DnD Magic, 'I cast fireball, kazap, 35 damage, Ref DC 19, save for half'

Not, casting, targeting, dodge, damage. 2 rolls as opposed to 4

Note, I rather like GURPS and its the second most commonly usedsystem in my existence (beating both DnD and Earthdawn), but it definitely requires more mess than DnD to use I think

But, thats what makes it cool really, the fact you do have all those rolls

Grendel

01-23-2007, 09:58 AM

I'm not getting into a pissing contest on complexity here. Just pointing out that D&D is by no means whatsoever a simple set of combat rules.

And then you have feint moves which requires a "bluff" and "sense motive" roll, which slows down combat even further as you wait for the GM to respond with the result. Same thing with grapples, bull rushes, overruns, and much more. Sure, D&D combat can be real simple if all anyone ever does is swing back and forth with no extra skills. But is that realistic? No.

Wook

01-23-2007, 01:38 PM

There are very few combat systems as simple as 3.x. Combat is my roll vs your AC. My damage deducted from your hp total. I am responsible for knowing what all relevant modifiers are and adding them to my roll. There are no active defenses, no abort to dodge, etc... There's not even facing to worry about. There are more simplistic combat systems out there but not many. And regardless of how complex or not 3.x is adding crit tables, hit locataions, and rules for called shots and the like would be a not insignificant increase in the complexity, or simplicity, that is already there. (Any one of them representing it's own increase and all of them together representing a significant increase.)

silverwhisper

01-23-2007, 01:53 PM

Wook

01-23-2007, 02:06 PM

****, the range of possible options beyond merely attacking is considerable in D&D. this leads directly, irrevocably to greater complexity. and most games haven't sold their souls for miniatures sales.

Grapple, sunder, disarm, bull rush, and trip. These are all things that have analogues in other combat systems that I'm aware of, GURPS, Hero, Earthdawn, and WW. Some games have other, as in additional, combat options, and a few have less. (But not many...) As it relates to other game systems D&D is vastly less complex in how it resolves these things.

silverwhisper

01-23-2007, 02:16 PM

"vastly less complex"? ****, kindly compare the way those options are handled in 3.5 vs. any other 2 systems...let's say WEG SW. please demonstrate how disarming, breaking an opponent's weapon, charging an opponent or tripping an opponent are resolved in a vastly less complex fashion in 3.5 vs WEG SW.

Archaelos

01-23-2007, 02:41 PM

Has anyone had a chance to use or at least evaluate the D20 Song of Ice and Fire rules from Guardians of Order? I haven't had a chance to play with the combat rules yet, but from my first look, they appear to be quite gritty with optional rules for even more grit, such as the "Festering Wounds" sidebar. No idea if they slow gameflow down too much to be useful though.

Wook

01-23-2007, 03:03 PM

Actually WEG D6 is one of the very simple systems I was thinking of but if you'd like I can compare to GURPS and Hero, or earthdawn, or Palladium. Off the top of my head it's the only system I know of that's simpler without going to Amber diceless or some such.

3.x combat is Attack roll vs Static AC number
Sundering is an attack that provokes an AOO but is otherwise the same.
Bull rushing, grappling, tripping, and disarming are all opposed Str checks. (In some cases the defender can substitute Dex or a skill check at their discretion.) Facing is never an issue.

GURPS, Hero, and Earthdawn All have facing rules and active defenses that a player can make use of. Palladium only vuagely has facing rules but does have active defenses available to it's players. (As of the last time I played it...) GURPS and Hero both have hit locations, called shots, and damage multipliers depending upon hit location. Earthdawn has called shots and combat options to include attacking to knockdown, shield pining, and "aggressive" attacks. GURPS has the "all out attack" option. Hero has a list of combat options, they call them maneuvers, that takes up like 20 lines on every character sheet in one of the margins. And this is before we get into knockback and knockdown, wounds, bleeding, and how different systems track damage and wound penalties.

White Wolf is it's own kind of interesting though. I'm not sure where you'd place it but I'd put it at about even with 3.x and maybe even a little simpler unless you're playing Exalted. Exalted has so many options avaialble because of charms that I personally think it's one of the most complex systems out there. Very siimple to play and use mortals but the heroes start out complex and go up from there.

I haven't looked at the most recent edition of shadowrun to be able to comment in a sufficiently thoughtful manner upon how it compares but from waht I remember from the last time I played 3rd, several years ago, it was on average about as complex as 3.x

silverwhisper

01-23-2007, 03:10 PM

****: yes, i know WEG is simple. it's why i was surprised to see it listed among the systems you felt more complex than D&D. :> i'm sufficiently unfamiliar w/ ED and GURPS as to make the explanation near-meaningless to me. WW i sorta know but don't recall the combat rules. and given your oft-stated preference for rules-heavy games, i don't know, on further reflection, that we're going to get much mileage out of this exhange.

Wook

01-23-2007, 03:16 PM

Kindly point to where I said that? Cause I'm not finding it and I just skimmed back through the previous posts. :sawink2:

silverwhisper

01-23-2007, 03:19 PM

funny, coulda sworn it said that earlier... :troutslap:

Parzival

01-23-2007, 05:49 PM

3.x combat is Attack roll vs Static AC numberOF course the attack roll varies considerably. Between interative attacks, based on feats you decide to use, and whatever other modifiers are currently beling applied.
Sundering is an attack that provokes an AOO but is otherwise the same.
Bull rushing, grappling, tripping, and disarming are all opposed Str checks. (In some cases the defender can substitute Dex or a skill check at their discretion.) Facing is never an issue.
You're aknowledging that there are two seperate combat systems. <shrug> That isn't simple.
Nor is the fact that you had to reference exceptions to the basic rule when describing the basic rule.
Of course, there are also several static AC numbers, and which one you use depends on the attack.
That's before AoO, the situations that trigger them, and the exceptions under which they aren't invoked.
Then there's the full action vs the move-equivilant action, and the differences between them.
And DR. Can't forget the different DRs. Or the different types of damage.

Dude, D&D is a combat-centered game, and the combat system reflects this.

Kalzazz

01-23-2007, 06:44 PM

The combat system reflects it in part by trying to streamline it. No rolling init every round

The more tricksies people use the more complex DnD fights get. Hmm. The more tricksies people use in GURPS for the most part fights dont get much more complex, tricksies in GURPS are factored right into the base combat mechanics. Except grappling, which I still dont fully get

ED has no real called shots available, and the grappling rules are utterly pitiful. WEG SW has called shots, and doesnt seem to have grappling rules at all

Wook

01-23-2007, 07:21 PM

OF course the attack roll varies considerably. Between interative attacks, based on feats you decide to use, and whatever other modifiers are currently beling applied.

I'm responsible for my attack roll. And in the end it's my roll vs the AC and that's it. The vast overwhelming majority of the time that's all combat in 3.x is. Trip, Grappling, diarms, and sundering are all very uncommon.

You're aknowledging that there are two seperate combat systems. <shrug> That isn't simple.
Nor is the fact that you had to reference exceptions to the basic rule when describing the basic rule.
Of course, there are also several static AC numbers, and which one you use depends on the attack.
That's before AoO, the situations that trigger them, and the exceptions under which they aren't invoked.
Then there's the full action vs the move-equivilant action, and the differences between them.
And DR. Can't forget the different DRs. Or the different types of damage.

Dude, D&D is a combat-centered game, and the combat system reflects this.

No. It's all one combat system. Now if you want me to get into the complexities and attendant absurdities of GURPS, Hero, Palladium, and Earthdawn as they compare to D&D or White Wolf I can do that. I was talking about the general design of the system. If you want me to get into the details of them all I have the books at home and can do so. Personally I think you'd do best to just admit that 3.x is simpler than most other combat systems and move along. :sawink2:

silverwhisper

01-23-2007, 07:25 PM

hold on: definitions of simple vs. complex may be in order.

Kalzazz

01-23-2007, 07:27 PM

Hmm. Most challenging

Simple things have less passes of the flow of the game between people and less book lookup, and to a lesser extent less rolls

Complex things are the opposite

Wook

01-23-2007, 07:46 PM

Complexity would be measured in terms of the number of rules that apply to combat, the number of rolls involved in combat, the process for resolving damage, the number of options available to an attacker, and the number of things that need to be tracked in combat.

BattleNymph

01-23-2007, 08:47 PM

I'm kind of missing how changing the combat rules would make it 'grittier'.

Origen

01-23-2007, 08:48 PM

I'm kind of missing how changing the combat rules would make it 'grittier'.

Do you even know what anyone means when they use the term?

BattleNymph

01-23-2007, 08:52 PM

Do you even know what anyone means when they use the term?

Apparently not here. Would you explain? :)

Origen

01-23-2007, 08:55 PM

Apparently not here. Would you explain? :)

No.

But you can read about it, here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=80232

BattleNymph

01-23-2007, 09:02 PM

No.

But you can read about it, here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=80232

Ah, I see.

Origen

01-23-2007, 09:05 PM

Ah, I see.

Then you see that it is the lethality level of a campaign that is grim and gritty, and therefore, the combat rules of a game are usually the first to get dialed up when a campaign or a game is considered to have "grit."

Wook

01-23-2007, 09:13 PM

Yup. One of my favorite things about ED was how bloodly deadly the combat could be. As Kal pointed out it's quite brutal. "Oh look. I open ended for 40 damage on my d8+d6." Other guy, "That's a wound." Next guy, "Actually I'm dead. Does someone have a last chance salve?"

BattleNymph

01-23-2007, 09:15 PM

Makes sense.

SD Anderson

01-23-2007, 10:34 PM

And then you have feint moves which requires a "bluff" and "sense motive" roll, which slows down combat even further as you wait for the GM to respond with the result. Same thing with grapples, bull rushes, overruns, and much more. Sure, D&D combat can be real simple if all anyone ever does is swing back and forth with no extra skills. But is that realistic? No.

I think you're hitting nail heads with backed up natural 20s here. You are, I am Kal and **** too can handle game systems we are familiar with in our sleep. There is a natural tendency for opinion to come around to "This game is not hard to learn!"

Pointing out complexities in other systems does NOT make the first system easy. At best you score a 'less complex' rating for it.

Standard play D&D includes some pretty complicated combat rules even without the messes connected to Attack of Opportunity. You have actions that consume movement rate on the character and similar actions that do not.

And the contrast tool used to make it seem simpler works in reverse. Compare D&D to White Wolf or Pocket Universe or even D20 derived systems like Tue 20. These mechanics ARE much simpler than D&D.

D&D is not impossibly complex, it has true fans along with folks who basically play it becasue of a lack of willing GMs to run other games in your area. But the true fans need to understand the semi fans and non-players have legitimate complaints about the system.

Origen

01-23-2007, 10:45 PM

But the true fans need to understand the semi fans and non-players have legitimate complaints about the system.

Um, nobody is denying that, sparky. There are many problems with OD&D, 1st Edition AD&D, 2nd Edition AD&D and 3.0 or 3.5, or anywhere in between. There is absolutely no such thing as a perfect system, and there are problems in D&D just like any other game.

AoO's, however, are not among its worst problems.

Standard play D&D includes some pretty complicated combat rules even without the messes connected to Attack of Opportunity. You have actions that consume movement rate on the character and similar actions that do not.

D&D does have some complicated combat mechanics. I agree.

Compare D&D to White Wolf or Pocket Universe or even D20 derived systems like Tue 20. These mechanics ARE much simpler than D&D.

Hahahahahahaha!!!!

You had me up until this point. Dice pools are simpler? Yeah. You obviously haven't tried to explain White Wolf game mechanics to a new player in a while.

Physician, heal thyself.

Kalzazz

01-23-2007, 10:51 PM

White Wolf is simpler? Well . . . . its easy enough to explain. Mostly. Its Shadowrun with 10 siders. Roll, count the successes

There are 4 systems I can do in my sleep, DnD 3.0, GURPS 3, Earthdawn, D6

Palladium Fantasy, ODnD, ADnD 1e and 2e, DnD 3.5, GURPS 4, Pendragon, Pokethulhu, Shadowrun I can manage more or less, but not in my sleep

BESM, White Wolf and CoC I can manage with great effort and much rules lookup

Parzival

01-23-2007, 11:30 PM

IMO, "gritty" is largely defined from the Simulationist/Gamist/Narrativist perspective. With the more simulationist a game is, the more gritty it is.

Just as a refresher: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/
Talk to someone who participates in role-playing, and focus on the precise and actual acts of role-playing themselves. Ask them, "Why do you role-play?" The most common answer is, "To have fun."

Again, stick to the role-playing itself. (The wholly social issues are real, such as "Wanting to hang out with my friends," but they are not the topic at hand.) Now ask, "What makes fun?" This may not be a verbal question, and it is best answered mainly through role-playing with people rather than listening to them. Time and inference are usually required.

In my experience, the answer turns out to be a version of one of the following terms. These terms, or modes, describe three distinct types of people's decisions and goals during play.

Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the competition.

Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration.

Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).
If a character falls forty feet onto sharp rocks without being badly hurt (and without prior in-game justification like "on a low-grav moon") a simulationist is going to be pissed. I'm a hard-core simulationist. I see the rules of the game as a model of reality, and when it doesn't hold up to close inspection, it totally hashes my mellow.
A gamist would simply see such an event as the rules of the game. (**** or Org would be much better to aquaint you with this view.)
A narrativist sees primarily the seperation of himself from the rest of the party. Most likely to face an individual challenge (be it an internal demon or external puzzle or threat).

You've seen the different perspectives on this thread, most notably between **** and myself. <grin> I'll shout "they're only human!" he'll shout "they're heroes!", and never in twain shall we meet.

<grin> I admit it, I hit the ceiling when he dismissed most NPCs as unimportant to the game.
To me, they're a primary focus. Every bit as important as consistant physics and a constant world. (Neither of which, admittedly, does he care a great deal for.)

Wook

01-24-2007, 01:03 AM

I think you're hitting nail heads with backed up natural 20s here. You are, I am Kal and **** too can handle game systems we are familiar with in our sleep. There is a natural tendency for opinion to come around to "This game is not hard to learn!"

Pointing out complexities in other systems does NOT make the first system easy. At best you score a 'less complex' rating for it.

Standard play D&D includes some pretty complicated combat rules even without the messes connected to Attack of Opportunity. You have actions that consume movement rate on the character and similar actions that do not.

I can, and have, made informed comparisons of 3.x to WW, Earthdawn, Hero, GURPS, Palladium and WEG d6. I haven't gone into an in depth play by play rule by rule analysis and have kept it general because I don't think anyone wants to read a doctoral thesis on game complexity. I have played all of these rule sets enough over their assorted iterations that I can build a character for them in my preferred genres mostly in my head. (Character creation in GURPS and Hero is sufficiently complex that I need a book to keep track of some point values and costs and can't do it in my head.) That covers most of big hitters for game mechanics out there. There are a few that I can't comment meaninfully upon in Shadowrun, Amber, Ars Magica, V&V, and <insert game that I missed here>. So I think I'm capable of making a pretty well informed comparison and quite frankly at no point did I ever make anything other than a comparison.

And the contrast tool used to make it seem simpler works in reverse. Compare D&D to White Wolf or Pocket Universe or even D20 derived systems like Tue 20. These mechanics ARE much simpler than D&D.

True 20 and Pocket Universe I can not make meaningful comment upon but...

<stifles laughter>

WW is not, I say NOT, simpler for combat in any absolute sense. Some FLAVORS of WW are very simple where combat is concerned such as Vampire, Mage, Changeling, and the whole LARP set from them but Werewolf, Hunter, and especially Exalted are not at all simple. Those games all have a focus on combat and this shows in the rules they have for those combats. (The exalted rulebook essentailly has an entire chapter dedicated to combat and an entire different chapter dedicated just to combat options and the chapter on combat options is the larger of the two.)

D&D is not impossibly complex, it has true fans along with folks who basically play it becasue of a lack of willing GMs to run other games in your area. But the true fans need to understand the semi fans and non-players have legitimate complaints about the system.

I will assert, quite confortably, in objective terms that D&D is one of the simplest combat engines out there. Combat is an inherently complex part of the rules though so it's not surprising that it's the beefiest chapter of most RPG books. Off the top of my head I only know of 2 games from expereince where combat is simpler. Those are WEG d6 and the ruleset that was used for Nightlife and It came from the late, late, late show.

Kalzazz

01-24-2007, 01:37 AM

Oh, no, no! Please go ahead and present a doctoral thesis on varying rules complexity, I quite enjoy these discussions, so rest assured at least one person will read it

Grendel

01-24-2007, 02:48 AM

I will assert, quite confortably, in objective terms that D&D is one of the simplest combat engines out there.

No. It isn't. Cyberpunk is much simpler. Shadowrun is much simpler. D6 is much simpler. Call of Cthulhu is much simpler. Heros games are much simpler. You are either comfortably insane or you just haven't played many other games.

adding crit tables, hit locataions, and rules for called shots
The only person talking about hit locations and called shots is you. They aren't necessary in order to have a crit table. All you need for a good set of crit tables is a chart with increasingly bad bodily effects that make sense for the various weapon types (piercing, slashing, and blunt).

And as I asked before, don't you have to roll to see if your "threat" actually becomes a critical? That same roll could be the crit roll instead. Zero added complexity. Just a short pause in the game as a humorous and/or gruesome description is read by one of the players. Zero added complexity. Lots of added benefit to the game. And since we are talking about making a game more gritty (which by definition means more realistic and more deadly) there are few additions to a game that make a game more gritty than a good crit chart. In fact, I can think of none.

TinSoldier

01-24-2007, 02:53 AM

Just to add my 2 cp, I think that "grittier" has much more to do with atmosphere and setting than it does with rules.

For D&D, the GM has to remember rule zero and make sure to disallow any feats/skills/spells/acquisitions that do not fit the atmosphere.

Eberron has a gritty setting. Cyberpunk has a gritty setting. I'm sure there are others.

Grendel

01-24-2007, 03:03 AM

Just to add my 2 cp, I think that "grittier" has much more to do with atmosphere and setting than it does with rules.

What can you possibly do to the atmosphere of a game to make it more gritty? Scary isn't gritty. Terrain isn't gritty. Music and scenery aren't gritty. Gritty is "holy crap, fighting 2 orcs at once is actually pretty nasty in this game". Gritty is "damn, you do NOT want to get surrounded by a starving pack of wolves". Gritty is "instead of being attacked by 30 kobolds and simply killing 2 or 3 a round until they are all dead, you kill 2 or 3 a round for a few rounds and then the rest of them gang tackle you". Gritty is realistic mechanics and realistic consequences, not tough talk, rainy nights, and foggy mornings.

Kalzazz

01-24-2007, 03:23 AM

Open ended damage rolls!

That would make DnD much more painful and deadly!

Wook

01-24-2007, 04:34 AM

No. It isn't. Cyberpunk is much simpler. Shadowrun is much simpler. D6 is much simpler. Call of Cthulhu is much simpler. Heros games are much simpler. You are either comfortably insane or you just haven't played many other games.

D6 I'll happily concede is simpler. Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, and Cthulu I can't comment upon either way but if you think Hero is a simpler combat system boy or boy are we going to have fun. You have seen the list of combat options, without martial arts factoring, that players have available in addition to knockback, facing, hit locations, active defenses, and an interplay of attack type vs defense type that's only got D&D pwnd by an order of magnitude right?

Allow me to expound... :sawink2:

Hero, just like 3.x, has the basic combat mechanic of die roll vs static number. (This is derived from a simple formula of your offensive skill compared to their defensive skill.)

Now for damage we first check to see if it's a lethal or non lethal attack. If it's a lethal attack only my resistant defenses apply. If it's a stunning attack then my full defenses apply. If it's a physical attack then that set applies if it's an energy attack then my energy defenses apply. If' it s a non-lethal attack that still does body, aka killing damage, then I need to count the body of that attack and make sure it still doesn't penetrate my resistant defenses and then I get to calculate knockback based upon an entirely different formula. Then based upon whatever damage I've taken we'll check and see if there's any knockback. (Very rarely happens outside of supers combat though... It bears mentioning because in fantasy hero a magic user can hit those levels of damage reasonably easily and the inherent resistances to it will be much less common and not nearly as strong.)

Under 3.x there is lethal and non-lethal damage but it goes agaisnt the dame defenses, if you have them at all, and the damage done is the same, rather than having both a Stun pool and an body pool to keep track of. DR, if you have it at all, applies equally all the time against any physical attack and the same for energy resistance, if you have it at all. (Which is to say these things are not the default state of affairs and may not be relevant in 3.x at all.)

And before we see if I actually hit in a Hero combat the defender has the opportunity to "abort" to some applicable active defense such as a dodge, block, or parry. (This is something that doesn't even exist in 3.x.)

And that leads us to combat options. I've previously listed that which exists in 3.x. Melee/spell/ranged, sunder, trip, disarm, bull rush, grapple. These all exist in hero with the addition of move thrus, move by's, haymakers, sweeps, and called shots. (That if successful can have HUGE critical multipliers.) And it's worth pointing out at this point that by options I'm not talking about optional rules mind you but the list of things any PC can attempt. (They're listed on the sheet.)

And then there are the Hero rules for facing that don't even exist in 3.x.

The only person talking about hit locations and called shots is you. They aren't necessary in order to have a crit table. All you need for a good set of crit tables is a chart with increasingly bad bodily effects that make sense for the various weapon types (piercing, slashing, and blunt).

And as I asked before, don't you have to roll to see if your "threat" actually becomes a critical? That same roll could be the crit roll instead. Zero added complexity. Just a short pause in the game as a humorous and/or gruesome description is read by one of the players. Zero added complexity. Lots of added benefit to the game. And since we are talking about making a game more gritty (which by definition means more realistic and more deadly) there are few additions to a game that make a game more gritty than a good crit chart. In fact, I can think of none.

My original comment was that crit tables beg for hit locations beg for called shots and referenced letting one in as the narrow end of the wedge for rules creep. I'll happily stand by that comment. Rules creep is an evil nasty thing and it's why I have an entirle shelf o my book case dedicated just to 3.5 splat books. If you want to discuss mechanics for creating crit tables and the problems they present I'll be more than happy to do so but it should be it's own thread because believe you me it's going to be quite the conversation. The short version is that yes what you have propose would add grit and would replace the damge roll with looking up a chart so not really any significant change in complexity, and if I missed that part before I apologize btw..., but it would create some pretty serious balance issues, expecially if you're going to talk about permanently scarring and maiming and out and out death effects.

Wook

01-24-2007, 04:40 AM

Oh yeah. One more thing about hero combat - The stun lottery. When I hit with a killing attack I take the body of the attack and roll a d6-1. The result is the amount of stun I do in addition to the body dealt. So a 3d6 killing attack will yield an average of 10-11 body and potentially up to 55 stun. (With an average stun of 20-33.) That's an attack roughly equivalent to a big beefy human wielding a big beefy weapon. (2d6 wpn with a str of 20 in hero terms. Roughly analguous to a fighter wielding a great sword or other 2h wpn IIRC.)

Wook

01-24-2007, 04:49 AM

And to speak specifically to one point of Grendel's...

...You are either comfortably insane or you just haven't played many other games.

I have played in and/or run campigns for 1st ed, 2nd ed, 3.0, 3.5 versions of D&D, Earthdawn, Palladium (TMNT, FRPG, and Rifts.), Nightlife, WEG D6 (Western and SW), Shadowrun 3rd ed, Hero Games (4th and 5th editions), and White Wolf games. (Werewolf, Vampire, and Mage.)

I have played, but not in campaigns, Twilight 2000, chill, It came from the late late late show, paranoia, Exalted, Mutants & Masterminds, Champions Fuzion, Marc Miller's Traveler, and Rolemaster.

My sanity falls within the average range for society. In this case you are demonstrably wrong.

Grendel

01-24-2007, 09:26 AM

if you think Hero is a simpler combat system

I played Marvel Superheroes as a kid. It was ridiculously simple. Never played Hero

My original comment was that crit tables beg for hit locations beg for called shots

And you're wrong. The charts don't require hit locations or called shots and, in fact, wouldn't be permissible if such rules existed. The GM simply says "no called shots and no hit locations" and that is that. Any GM that allows rules creep is a coward who can't handle a gritty game anyway.

The short version is that yes what you have propose would add grit and would replace the damge roll with looking up a chart
Again, I never said anything about replacing the damage roll. If you roll a "threat" then you make a roll on the crit chart. It's that simple. You can add modifiers to one's crit chances, such as a feat that gives you an adder to the roll or a major bonus to the roll for a slaying weapon but they would be permanent modifiers and would not add complexity.

but it would create some pretty serious balance issues, expecially if you're going to talk about permanently scarring and maiming and out and out death effects.

We're talking about a game where death itself isn't even permanent. Whining about injuries and scars seems pretty funny in comparison. Obviously there would be ways to heal that up, either over time or immediately. Although I prefer systems that make a scar or lost limb permanent if you can't magically heal it up within a reasonable time frame (like 24 hours). As for balance issues, isn't the point of grittier rules to change the balance? If there are any ridiculous balance problems, they can easily be dealt with. For example, regardless of a weapon's threat range, you only roll a critical on a 20. Simple fix to a possible abuse as everyone suddenly begins using scimitars and rapiers.

Oh yeah. I almost forgot. Paranoia. Yet another game with a more simple combat system. That's close to a dozen systems mentioned so far that blow D&D away in terms of complexity. If that makes me "demonstrably wrong" then we have vastly different definitions of "complex". Sorry dude. But D&D is pretty complex. And that's a good thing. The original game was almost mindless. I stopped enjoying it at about 16 years old. And even then we had the game so house-ruled that it wasn't even D&D anymore.

TinSoldier

01-24-2007, 10:38 AM

What can you possibly do to the atmosphere of a game to make it more gritty? Scary isn't gritty. Terrain isn't gritty. Music and scenery aren't gritty. Gritty is "holy crap, fighting 2 orcs at once is actually pretty nasty in this game". Gritty is "damn, you do NOT want to get surrounded by a starving pack of wolves". Gritty is "instead of being attacked by 30 kobolds and simply killing 2 or 3 a round until they are all dead, you kill 2 or 3 a round for a few rounds and then the rest of them gang tackle you". Gritty is realistic mechanics and realistic consequences, not tough talk, rainy nights, and foggy mornings.Sorry, but I disagree.

You guys are talking about more realistic mechanics and consequences in this thread for several pages now, or at least how D&D is more or less complex than other rule sets. Whatever.

To me, more realistic mechanics are called "more realistic mechanics". "Grit" is that Sin City like quality where you aren't quite the good guy, the bad guys aren't always who you think they are, and someone is always out to get you.

YMMV.

Grendel

01-24-2007, 11:42 AM

To me, more realistic mechanics are called "more realistic mechanics". "Grit" is that Sin City like quality where you aren't quite the good guy, the bad guys aren't always who you think they are, and someone is always out to get you.

And the fact that Sin City is an extremely violent and deadly place is a HUGE part of that. If that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be such a gritty place. Someone always out to get you isn't gritty unless the likelihood of them actually "getting you" is a very real possibility. Gears of War is gritty. Halo is not. May Payne is gritty. Medal of Honor is not. It's not just the atmosphere. It's the mechanics.

SD Anderson

01-24-2007, 03:44 PM

Hahahahahahaha!!!!

You had me up until this point. Dice pools are simpler? Yeah. You obviously haven't tried to explain White Wolf game mechanics to a new player in a while.

Physician, heal thyself.

Misspoke. White Wolf mechanics are several editions released inlieu of play testing.

White Wolf as actually played is simple. Everyone tosses out the rules and makes it up as they go a long.

Wook

01-24-2007, 04:03 PM

No. It isn't. Cyberpunk is much simpler. Shadowrun is much simpler. D6 is much simpler. Call of Cthulhu is much simpler. Heros games are much simpler. You are either comfortably insane or you just haven't played many other games.

I played Marvel Superheroes as a kid. It was ridiculously simple. Never played Hero

Well which is it? If you're going to say that it's simpler having never played it WTF are you talkinga bout then?

And you're either ignoring or not understanding what I"m saying. If you add crit tables then you're going to have a problem with rules creep because if there are crit tables that say, "You cut off his head", then players are going to want to know how they can get that effect every time because obviously that lets them skip past the fighting the mosnter part and go straight ot the looting it's treasure part. Once you have one players are going to want, and then complain at the lack, of the others.

As I said before there are also game balance issues wrt to adding crit charts in. I invite you, again, to create another thread where we might dicuss that potentiality. :sawink2: (There are actaully 3 differnt things you'd have to consider when crafting crit charts and there are game balance issues it brings up as well.)

Mouser

01-24-2007, 04:31 PM

Well which is it? If you're going to say that it's simpler having never played it WTF are you talkinga bout then?

Oh come ON, ****!!

Since when does Grendel actually have to KNOW about something to comment about how much it sucks?

silverwhisper

01-24-2007, 04:34 PM

mouser, weren't you complaining the other day quite loudly that grendel never changes his mind about things? yet a few posts back, he does precisely that.

Mouser

01-24-2007, 04:37 PM

mouser, weren't you complaining the other day quite loudly that grendel never changes his mind about things? yet a few posts back, he does precisely that.

You'll have to point that one out to me.

silverwhisper

01-24-2007, 04:44 PM

oops, wrong thread. reply #20 here (http://forum.criticalfumble.net/showthread.php?t=1205).

and i thought you were content to leave him alone and not take your little pot shots unprovoked? abandoning that plan?

Origen

01-24-2007, 04:48 PM

Misspoke. White Wolf mechanics are several editions released inlieu of play testing. White Wolf as actually played is simple. Everyone tosses out the rules and makes it up as they go a long.

Heh. Over on Enworld, recently, we had a horde of 1st Edition AD&D players who decided to try a forum invasion that wasn't QUITE as successful as they'd hoped because there are quite a few of us who actually PLAYED 1st Edition.

Most of them were finally forced to admit that there were actually some very large problems in 1st Edition AD&D that most of them chose to ignore or houserule out.

1st Edition AD&D as played, similarly, was quite simple. It's when you played by the rules that things got fucked up.

Grendel

01-24-2007, 05:06 PM

Well which is it? If you're going to say that it's simpler having never played it WTF are you talkinga bout then?
By "Heros" I meant any supers game. But I only ever played Marvel Superheroes. And it was absurdly simple. I've been told that other heroes games are similarly simple. But then that was some 20 years ago so I guess that isn't the case now.

And you're either ignoring or not understanding what I"m saying. If you add crit tables then you're going to have a problem with rules creep because if there are crit tables that say, "You cut off his head", then players are going to want to know how they can get that effect every time because obviously that lets them skip past the fighting the mosnter part and go straight ot the looting it's treasure part. Once you have one players are going to want, and then complain at the lack, of the others.

I already answered this point. The GM says "Sorry, there are no called shots in this game. And there never will be. If you want the decapitate critical, you'll just have to roll higher, get a slaying weapon, or add to skills and abilities that will give you a better crit. If you don't like it, don't play. Or I can take away crits altogether if they bother you. Take your pick." And that pretty much ends that.

If you want to discuss crits in a new thread, go ahead. I'll join in when I can.

Wook

01-24-2007, 05:20 PM

By "Heros" I meant any supers game. But I only ever played Marvel Superheroes. And it was absurdly simple. I've been told that other heroes games are similarly simple. But then that was some 20 years ago so I guess that isn't the case now.

You were lied to or the person talking didn't know what they were talking about IMHO. I've played under 3 different sets of rules for super heroes and none of them are what I'd call simple. Super heroics is one of those things that necessitates a rules heavy approach. I've seen it done rules light and it's not a good thing.

Wook

01-24-2007, 05:22 PM

I already answered this point. The GM says "Sorry, there are no called shots in this game. And there never will be. If you want the decapitate critical, you'll just have to roll higher, get a slaying weapon, or add to skills and abilities that will give you a better crit. If you don't like it, don't play. Or I can take away crits altogether if they bother you. Take your pick." And that pretty much ends that.

If you want to discuss crits in a new thread, go ahead. I'll join in when I can.

hehehe. If the GM is a random guy at a con and he uses that tone of voice I'll just go find another game to spend my time and money on. IF he's my freind and we're playing in his game and he uses that tone I may go find another game, or I may just draft up some form of what I'm wanting myself but it would certainly create a moment of strain in the friendship. And regardless of whether or not it comes up in that particular game somewhere down the road, and not to terribly far, the players are going to have devised rules for hit locations and/or called shots as a result. :sawink2: Promise.

silverwhisper

01-24-2007, 05:24 PM

****, it's a genre i know well. i've played the old DC heroes, all pre-saga versions of marvel, V&V and some others. i've even played the horrible palladium version and champions. w/ the exception the last two, those games were indeed simple. your exposure to V&V was, i think, flawed.

Wook

01-24-2007, 06:49 PM

My experience has been that palladium uses the same basic engine for all it's games. From what I saw in heroes unlimited this was still the case. That said... Palladium is not in any way, shape, or form simpler than 3.x as with Hero there is multiple sets of HP/damage pools and active defensses, and some vauge semblance of actual facing rules although I am not aware of what all the combat options that a palladium character has availalbe.

In either event I was refenceing my V&V experience as having played a supers game. I didn't have a chance to learn anythinga bout the rule set and I played a mook for something like 3-4 rounds of combat. That's not enough to make any informed comment other than that I didn't like what I saw in 3-4 rounds of combat. :sawink2: I was counting Hero, Mutants and Masterminds, and Chamions Fuzion on the list.

silverwhisper

01-24-2007, 07:16 PM

SD Anderson

01-25-2007, 02:09 AM

palladium does indeed. and yes, it's absolutely rules heavy. that's b/c kevin siembieda is an artistically bankrupt human who was sued by gygax given that the house palladium system is an incredibly kludged-up AD&D1.

i'm unfamiliar w/ fuzion, but i've played enough V&V to know that rules light does work for supers.

Fuzion was a mix of R. Talsorians "Interlock" system with Hero Games Hero System. Several small press ventures used it in addition to it's two creators. Neither Creator is actively supporting it now and most if not all of the small press publishers using it have gone bye bye.

In play it was more a Hero Lite game. During chargen it was a mix of Hero Lite and Interlock's lifepaths.

silverwhisper

01-25-2007, 07:03 AM

i remember the RTG mechanic, vaguely, but know nothing of hero. this explains why i don't know from fuzion. thank you, SD.

Kalzazz

01-25-2007, 07:58 AM

On the whole Brutal = Gritty bit, the most flat out brutal game Ive been in (and am still in) is the Earthdawn game where I get to play a drake. Its even more brutal than at low circle Earthdawn, because there are a lot of truly vicious tricks and combos in play, and enough dice and karma such that truly devastating blows arent that uncommon

Definitely not low powered, but still surprising when your character who fills the ecological niche of a demigod gets beaten about like a pinata

Baelfyre

01-25-2007, 09:00 AM

palladium does indeed. and yes, it's absolutely rules heavy. that's b/c kevin siembieda is an artistically bankrupt human who was sued by gygax given that the house palladium system is an incredibly kludged-up AD&D1.

This just isn't true. The palladium system shares exactly one thing with D & D... the level concept.

You've said this before, and I've tried to tell you that you just don't know what you are talking about. I'm going to contrast the two in combat systems, character skills, and magic.

step 1)
Palladium
Check for surprise
Check to see if
Prowl roll made
Otherwise, I don't
recall a surprise
mechanic offhand

Original and A D & D
Check for Surprise
Roll d6, depending on race/class

step 2)
Palladium
Roll Initiative
d20+bonuses
Bonuses come
from skills/powers/
race

D & D
Roll initiative
roll d6 -bonuses
Bonuses come from dex and weapons

step 3)
Palladium
Roll attack
d20+bonuses
against either
static difficulty 5+
or parry or dodge
countering roll.

D&D
Roll attack
d20+ bonuses against table
all difficulties are static

step 4)
Palladium
Check to see if the natural roll is equal to or lower than the AR of any armor worn; if so then armor takes any damage, and is
subject to being destroyed when it's sdc is destroyed.

If natural roll is less than or equal to a monsters natural AR, the attack bounces regardless of how powerful it is.

D&D
Roll damage. If and only if a natural twenty was rolled then double damage. Thief backstab can do damage multipliers if successful hide in shadows and/or move silent roll is made or invisible.

step 5)
Palladium
Check to see if the natural roll is equal to or greater the attackers critical strike roll ie 18-20. Critical strike threatsvary from character to character and level to level.

D&D
Subtract damage from HP
Done

Step 6
Palladium
Roll weapon damage.
Multiply weapon damage only (not str damage) if a critical strike.

Step 7
Subtract from hit points.

Character stats:
Palladium
8 stats
HP d6/level regardless of class.
All character have a different movement rate based on a statistic (spd) and possible armor.

D&D

6 stats
HP d6/level regardless of
class.
All characters except the monk have a movement rate based on race/armor

Magic (casting)
Palladium
2 spells + 1 per level
gains spell level every level
Magic strength (difficulty to resist magic) goes up as the magic user goes up.
No magic resistance.

D&D
table, gaining spells at an increasing rate + possible wiz bonuses gain spell level every 2 levels
Magic strength stays static.
Magic Resistance varies by spellcaster level.

Character skills
Palladium
All characters get skills with a % score. Each class has a list of skills to choosefrom and some skills they have to have. Virtually every character will have some differences in skills between even members of the same class.
Character may also get some class abilities.

Characters get the opportunity to automatically learn outside skills as they advance.

D&D
Characters get class abilities, not skills except for the thief. All characters of the same class will have the same abilities.
Characters specifically can not learn skills except for class level advancements.

Combat skills
Palladium
All character have a choice between at least two variations in combat skills, and can choose to be better at the cost of other skills.

Combat skills vary the bonuse to strike, parry, dodge, crit, and number of attacks as well as a possible roll w/punch.

D&D
All characters of the same class have the same combat skills possible doubled/tripled weapon proficiences for fighters as of Unearthed arcana.

Level Advancement
Palladium
Ex awarded does not vary by level, and ranges from 500-2000 per adventure regardless of the party's level. Ex is awarded based on (specific examples from list) heroism, skill use, roleplaying, and goal accomplishment just to start.

D&D
Ex awarded by monster/treasure, each of which varies with the level of the encounter.

Two completely different game systems in concept, flavor and mechanics in virtually every aspect. It's an excellent system, but a bit too complicated.

I'd also like to note that Gygax stole huge chunks of D&D from David Hargrave, who later wrote Arduin.

silverwhisper

01-25-2007, 10:42 AM

and when you did, baelfyre, i told you that you're being extremely selective.

palladium/AD&D1 comparisons:
OCCs/classes
spell slots/spell slots

it uses the same basic combat engine. are there minor differences here and there such as your list describes? absolutely and there's no question about it.

that said:

1. how many games at the time retained the class concept? traveler, the first sci-fi RPG, did not. neither did TSR's star frontiers. what about champions and V&V, the first 2 heroes RPGs?

2. it uses the same spell slot system--how many others did at the time? care to hazard a guess?

3. the one distinct thing siembieda did was to add a skill system--a common houserule in AD&D-dom. it's a kludge but then again, i said it was a heavily kludged-up version.

and if i were you, i'd be extremely careful about throwing around the charge of not knowing what someone is talking about.

Chimaera

01-25-2007, 12:23 PM

Wow... I've never seen anyone describe Palladium as a excellent system.

It's a mess, IMHO and a poorly-written mess at that, and ugly besides, on nearly every level, especially with Siembieda's hypocritical and condescending preaching about power levels. Of the major contenders, I can't think of a worse set of mechanics.

Baelfyre

01-25-2007, 01:17 PM

palladium/AD&D1 comparisons:
OCCs/classes
The differences with the OCC/RCC and D&D classes are so numerous I don't even know where to start. A D&D class defined EVERYTHING about your character. A Palladium (man at arms) class essentially offers you a set of skills with different costs and bonuses, as well as possible social level.

Spellcasting classes are so totally different from D & D that it boggles the mind how you could say they bear any resemblance to D&D classes.

Priests got limited spellcasting(from the same magic list as wizards) and prayers.
Druids got shapechange, and no spellcasting as I recall.
Diabolists got to make "ward phrases"; essentially a language where the player could put together different effects to make new magical effects.
Summoners had access to circles that let them summon magical creatures and effects.
Warlocks get access to elemental magic (as in fire/earth/air/water) as well as elemental friendship/summoning abilities.
Then you had the traditional wizard.

Not to mention RCC (racial character classes available only to certain races).

1. how many games at the time retained the class concept? traveler, the first sci-fi RPG, did not. neither did TSR's star frontiers. what about champions and V&V, the first 2 heroes RPGs?

Tunnels and trolls. Arduin. And Traveller used something similar; career paths such as Navy, Scout, and Merchant marine.
Off the top of my head.

2. it uses the same spell slot system--how many others did at the time? care to hazard a guess?

No, it doesn't.

A D & D mage can throw x spells of first, y spells of second, and z spells of third level ad infinitum.

A palladium mage can throw 2 + (wizards level) total spells per day, of any level.

Completely different. Particularly in actual play. Particularly since Palladium mages don't have to memorize their spells, and can throw any spell they know of.

Further, at higher levels they can throw two spells, of any level, per round.

I'm not even going to go into how being able to throw a dozen 10th level spells at tenth level changes the dynamic.

3. the one distinct thing siembieda did was to add a skill system--a common houserule in AD&D-dom. it's a kludge but then again, i said it was a heavily kludged-up version.

Did you even look at the experience difference? That alone constitutes a complete paradigm change from D & D. A change from a "kill the monster/loot the treasure" paradigm to the "goal oriented" and "roleplaying" paradigm.

You're right that the original skill system is badly put together... but it was one of the first.

it uses the same basic combat engine. are there minor differences here and there such as your list describes? absolutely and there's no question about it.

I didn't list "here and there" differences. I listed specific differences AT EVERY SINGLE STEP of combat.

The combat system for Palladium is active and fluid, with both parties involved having multiple options for attack and defense.

D&D has NO options for defense, and damn few offensive depending on your class. Weapon attack, brawl, and grapple were it unless you were a monk.

D & D uses a table. A static number that you must roll to beat a given AC.

Palladium uses a dynamic system, where you have to roll against variable difficulties, determined by the defenders actual skills and stats as opposed to their armor and dex.

D & D armor makes you harder to hit.
Palladium armor absorbs damage.

They are completely different in every way except that they both use a d20 to hit... and even then they use it differently.

Lets try this another way, though.

In what way are they the same as far as the combat engine?

Name one single mechanical aspect of the combat engine, from the initial step to the last step, that is the same. Now, do the same thing conceptually.

Initiative: Different
Determining bonuses for attacks: Different
Determining number of attacks: Different
Determining Hits: different
Resolving normal hits: different
Resolving critical hits: different
Determining base hit points: different
Weapon damage: different

In what way are they the same as far as the magic system goes?
Name one single aspect of the magic system that is the same.

Learning spells: Different
Making spells: different
Casting spells: different
Power advancement: different
Spell Slots: different

How are they the same as far as character creation?
Name one single aspect of character creation that is the same.
Stats: different
Base Hit Points: Different
Hit Point progression: Different
Skills: different
Classes: vaguely similar in names, completely different in function

and if i were you, i'd be extremely careful about throwing around the charge of not knowing what someone is talking about.

On this matter, you simply don't. You have, for some personal reason, a dislike of Kevin Siembeda. You also seem to have had a very bad experience with Palladium and you don't like it. I get that. Don't like him myself. Nor am I trying to change your mind about liking the system or saying there is anything wrong with not liking it. But your statement

"the house palladium system is an incredibly kludged-up AD&D1"

is both factually and conceptually incorrect and I am quite willing to prove it with a step by step breakdown of both systems function.

There are indeed a few points of intersection, but those simply serve to highlight the enormous conceptual differences between the systems when you look at them side to side.

I believe I still have all of the books in my closet and will be more than willing to pull them out and post excerpts straight from them.

I ran and played both games. D & D from 1-30th level a half dozen times in campaigns lasting years. Palladium RPG (new and old versions), Heroes Unlimited, (three separate versions), Ninja's and Superspies (Old and revised), not to mention a two year long Rifts campaign that ended with the characters about 15th level. I run at least once a week now, and Whiteraven ( the Palladium RPG game) was frequently a twice a week game over two years by player demand.

I have offered specific, provable differences. And am quite willing to post page numbers from each rulebook to prove my statements.

You are offering vague, sweeping statements without the slightest bit of evidence or support.

BTW, I can't find any reference to any contact between Siembieda and gygax. Any links?

Origen

01-25-2007, 01:25 PM

Just to add my 2 cp, I think that "grittier" has much more to do with atmosphere and setting than it does with rules.

Except that atmosphere and setting, without rules to back them up, are ultimately meaningless.

TinSoldier

01-25-2007, 01:28 PM

Except that atmosphere and setting, without rules to back them up, are ultimately meaningless.I think that's what Grendel was trying to tell me.

Hmm. I dunno if I agree with it but you all are more experienced gamers so I'll have to take your word for it.

Origen

01-25-2007, 01:38 PM

Hmm. I dunno if I agree with it but you all are more experienced gamers so I'll have to take your word for it.

I don't suggest taking my word for anything.

Do you think that D&D, by default, is a gritty setting? If so, why? If not, then why not?

TinSoldier

01-25-2007, 01:45 PM

I don't suggest taking my word for anything.

Do you think that D&D, by default, is a gritty setting? If so, why? If not, then why not?What setting? The mish-mash of details that is in the core books? That's not gritty, but I just don't consider that to be a setting. It's more of a guideline for writing your own setting. There are no maps, no histories, nothing. Just a pantheon and a bunch of loosely connected details.

Eberron? I think that's gritty even though I haven't finished reading the book yet.

I'm not familiar with any of the other settings like DragonLance or Forgotten Realms. IIRC, Dark Sun was gritty even though I never played it. I've only looked at the books a little, and a long time ago at that.

Parzival

01-25-2007, 01:48 PM

Wook

01-25-2007, 02:12 PM

I'll second that...

Origen

01-25-2007, 02:43 PM

What setting? The mish-mash of details that is in the core books? That's not gritty, but I just don't consider that to be a setting. It's more of a guideline for writing your own setting. There are no maps, no histories, nothing. Just a pantheon and a bunch of loosely connected details.

You're missing the question. You can run a generic game of D&D. A "setting" is not required. You don't need Elminster or 300 pages of backstory. That's all fluff, and you can run a game without it.

But you've answered that a core-rules D&D game is not gritty, so let me expand on that.

A standard, by-the-book CR 1 orc is not a threat to a 10th level fighter. Period. Ever. There is nothing you can do to make him scary. You can dress him in black. You can put cool little blades on his armor. You can spend hours describing the setting, and the scenery, and write two or three short stories describing how unreleanting and cruel the orc is. But the fact is, unless he is an equivalent CR to the 10th level fighter, the orc remains nothing more than a back-swing off of a cleave from a more powerful opponent while the 10th level fighter stifles a yawn.

TinSoldier

01-25-2007, 04:08 PM

You're missing the question. You can run a generic game of D&D. A "setting" is not required. You don't need Elminster or 300 pages of backstory. That's all fluff, and you can run a game without it.

But you've answered that a core-rules D&D game is not gritty, so let me expand on that.Okay, I got that.

A standard, by-the-book CR 1 orc is not a threat to a 10th level fighter. Period. Ever. There is nothing you can do to make him scary. You can dress him in black. You can put cool little blades on his armor. You can spend hours describing the setting, and the scenery, and write two or three short stories describing how unreleanting and cruel the orc is. But the fact is, unless he is an equivalent CR to the 10th level fighter, the orc remains nothing more than a back-swing off of a cleave from a more powerful opponent while the 10th level fighter stifles a yawn.Dress the Orc in black with blades on his armor and give him several class levels. Have him use a nifty magic item, and maybe give him a few buddies to back him up.

In other fantasy games, are low-level mooks a challenge for mid-level PCs? I understand in a decently gritty modern game a mook with a gun can be.

Chimaera

01-25-2007, 04:18 PM

Dress the Orc in black with blades on his armor and give him several class levels. Have him use a nifty magic item, and maybe give him a few buddies to back him up.

In other fantasy games, are low-level mooks a challenge for mid-level PCs? I understand in a decently gritty modern game a mook with a gun can be.

Aaaand you've upped the CR of the encounter. Dude, you're altering the parameters of the example now. The question wasn't "can you make an orc dangerous to a 10th level fighter?", the statement was: "A standard, by-the-book CR 1 orc is not a threat to a 10th level fighter."

The difference here is that in D&D, level increases alter the power-curve significantly. A 10th level fighter has an assload of hit points, to say nothing of iterative attacks and a much better BAB. The standard RAW orc has got just two things: fuck and all. He's a miniscule drag-effect on an otherwise unimpeded, graceful swing of a sword. In GURPS (3E revised, not 4th), OTOH, a 100 point Orc can still realistically cause the death of a much-higher point total character. In that game, your hit points are basically your HT stat, which isn't likely to change all that much over time, maybe increasing by a point or two if you choose to spend earned points on it. A lucky swing and a hit will still kill a higher-point total character (unless you're maybe using the SUPERS book). A lucky hit from a CR 1 orc would be double damage dice on rolling a pair of natural 20s (assuming you can even get a crit on a nat 20 only hit). Whoop-de-doo... 2d8 instead of 1... Even with some stat bonuses and such, no real threat there.

TinSoldier

01-25-2007, 04:23 PM

Hmm. I thought I had a line in that last post saying something like, "But who would put a CR 1 Orc up against a level 10 Fighter" but I must have forgotten it.

It's been awhile since I've played GURPS. Point taken, however. I've seen it discussed on how level based play makes certain encounters all but disappear the higher you go.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is one way of making the rules that are written in the book (no atmosphere or anything) more gritty is to up the CR and EL.

Stuff like CR and EL and Wealth Levels and hell, almost everything in the DMG are only guidelines anyway.

Origen

01-25-2007, 04:33 PM

Dress the Orc in black with blades on his armor and give him several class levels. Have him use a nifty magic item, and maybe give him a few buddies to back him up.

But you just proved my point. That's not atmosphere and setting. That's a mechanical change. The more gritty a game is, the more lethal it is. Mooks become less of a speed bump, en masse, and more of an actual threat.

In other fantasy games, are low-level mooks a challenge for mid-level PCs? I understand in a decently gritty modern game a mook with a gun can be.

Well, not all games have "levels" but in d20 Modern, yes. Every time someone hits you for more damage than your Con score, you make a DC 15 Fort save. If you fail, you go to -1. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

There are, in addition, gritty rules in Charles Rice's Blood and Guts that make firearms combat even more lethal.

When a 1st level orc threatens to throw a spear at your 10th level fighter, you laugh.

When a 5th level wizard threatens to blast your 10th level barbarian with a fireball, you chucklesnort.

When a bunch of 1st level punks drawn down on your 10th level character in d20 modern, they can kill you. They don't look scary. They ARE scary. Now, they will have to roll good, but one bullet is all it takes.

Wook

01-25-2007, 04:35 PM

A By the book orc is wielding an great axe so a crit from him would be approximately 3d12+9. a 10th level fighter will notice 25-30 points of damage but it's not threatening. Just annoying.

TinSoldier

01-25-2007, 04:41 PM

But you just proved my point. That's not atmosphere and setting. That's a mechanical change. The more gritty a game is, the more lethal it is. Mooks become less of a speed bump, en masse, and more of an actual threat.I guess this is where I was getting confused...

I saw tailoring an encounter to make it tougher for the PCs to be atmosphere, whereas I see your list of rules changes and houserules to be mechanical changes.

That was where my initial comment came from--you can make the game grittier without adding or changing rules but either by tailoring encounters themselves to be more gritty and/or by disallowing certain other things like access to spells and magic items. To me those kinds of things fall under setting and atmosphere.

I've seen from this thread, however, that this is not a perfect solution nor would it scale easily at higher levels.

Origen

01-25-2007, 04:56 PM

I guess this is where I was getting confused ... I saw tailoring an encounter to make it tougher for the PCs to be atmosphere, whereas I see your list of rules changes and houserules to be mechanical changes. That was where my initial comment came from--you can make the game grittier without adding or changing rules but either by tailoring encounters themselves to be more gritty and/or by disallowing certain other things like access to spells and magic items. To me those kinds of things fall under setting and atmosphere.

A grittier rules set expands lethality up and down the scale. Larger, tougher creatures become larger and tougher than they were before. Mooks become less of a backhand swing for your Great Cleave tennis arm, or dust to be swept up with fireballs, and become an actual threat instead of an impediment to movement.

I've seen from this thread, however, that this is not a perfect solution nor would it scale easily at higher levels.

D&D, in my opinion, tends to fall apart and move toward unplayability somewhere between 15th through 20th level. I've played Epic levels up to 33, but only ever episodically, and not on a week-to-week basis where designing encounters becomes an accountant's nightmare.

JasonStarfire

01-25-2007, 05:08 PM

So if I'm understanding this correctly, in gritty D&D, the CR1 Orc should be a threat to the lvl 10 fighter without having to add class levels, more orcs, magic, or anything else to beef it up from the RAW in the Monster Manual. Basically, what's deadly to a level 1 fighter should be mechanically deadly (even if it's not quite as deadly) to a level 10 fighter. Yes? No?

I like the idea of using the D20 Modern Fort Save rule. I might use that for D&D the next time I run that system.

The discussion about D&D vs. Palladium inspired me to break out my old books. While I was skimming through Palladium, I noticed another difference. D&D has the "paladin" class, while Palladium has the "palladin" class. Two Ls. :bricks:

Origen

01-25-2007, 05:16 PM

So if I'm understanding this correctly, in gritty D&D, the CR1 Orc should be a threat to the lvl 10 fighter without having to add class levels, more orcs, magic, or anything else to beef it up from the RAW in the Monster Manual. Basically, what's deadly to a level 1 fighter should be mechanically deadly (even if it's not quite as deadly) to a level 10 fighter. Yes? No?

It's really a matter of scale, rather than a tipping point or destination or conclusion. You can have a more gritty game, or a less gritty game. D&D is not very gritty, out of the box, however, because the game is DESIGNED to mean that high level characters barely even notice low level ones. A 20th level fighter can literally kill 1st level mooks all day long without ANY threat whatsoever. It is mathematically impossible for them to significantly threaten him in any way.

Baelfyre

01-25-2007, 08:11 PM

Chimaera: Wow... I've never seen anyone describe Palladium as a excellent system.

It's a mess, IMHO and a poorly-written mess at that, and ugly besides, on nearly every level, especially with Siembieda's hypocritical and condescending preaching about power levels. Of the major contenders, I can't think of a worse set of mechanics.

First thing: Seeing how mistaken I was with Origen, I decided to clear my iggy list. There is enough chance I misread things that I'm going to try to start over. Please accept my apologies if I slip and snark a bit; I am trying and apologize most humbly if I slip.

Now, on to the meat of my reply:

First, there are a lot of Palladium fans. As is evidenced by the fact that they put out and sell enormous numbers of books. As well as some very active forums.

And the pre-mdc, pre N&S revision was probably the single system I had the most fun with for ten years. I heavily houseruled it, but that more applied to the powers and powers/skills interaction than to the basic system.

I despise Siembieda on a personal level because of his business practices. I had the first four chapters of a module written out for sale... until I read their submissions policy. At which point I scrapped the project.

The system has it's problems. The biggest is scaling power upwards past tenth level and the experience issues attendant with expanding the experience tables cost by 50,000 ex while not expanding any way to boost the ex within the game. For example, 10th level is between 70-130,000 ex.. Meaning that depending how stingy/generous the GM is with ex., it takes roughly a year (35-65 weeks at 1500-2000ex per shot). Then eleventh level another 30,000 to 130,000 ex to reach... or at least 3 1/2 to four additional months. That's because there is no scale modifier for the kind of threats faced at that level. And it just gets worse as the level increases; 14-15th takes minimum 50,000 ex or more than six months to get a level.

I ran characters in Palladium RPG to approx 30th level; after twentieth I threw the rulebook out for ex and scaled it out to match the level of challenge the group were facing. This is a major problem with the system.

Another is that the Meta-human styled games had no mechanism for gaining further abilities, and that they did not follow their own powers in their supplements. My favorite example was in Villains unlimited. The super power Invulnerability gives total immunity to non-magical damage. Invulnerables can still be gassed, held, slowed, and attacked via psionics btw; just not harmed by any level of purely physical force. So they put out a sourcebook and had one of the characters w/superspeed and invulnerability have to wear armor to avoid taking damage from running into things.

But I digress.

The actual system, run by a GM that knows and understands the rules, actually works quite well. I'm not saying it's the best out there by any stretch, but I found it to be very playable and enjoyable. Until...

Rifts and everything post rifts w/the exception of the third revision of Heroes Unlimited is everything you said. Poorly balanced and contradictory, it became a caricature of the original system. I managed to run a very good game, but that was more my players than anything else.

Chimaera

01-25-2007, 08:43 PM

First thing: Seeing how mistaken I was with Origen, I decided to clear my iggy list. There is enough chance I misread things that I'm going to try to start over. Please accept my apologies if I slip and snark a bit; I am trying and apologize most humbly if I slip.

Dude, you put me on iggy after a very heated argument over an issue that was clearly deeply personal to both of us. I'm not going to lie and say that I didn't think you were being a bit of a sissy to put me on iggy, but if you're willing to give me another chance, I certainly appreciate it. I dish ou thte snark on occasion, but I take it well too... I like to think of myself as something of a connoissieur of fine snark, in fact, even if I'm the target. In other words, don't sweat snarking me -- it's not as if I'm not asking for it sometimes.

Now, on to the meat of my reply:

First, there are a lot of Palladium fans. As is evidenced by the fact that they put out and sell enormous numbers of books. As well as some very active forums.

And there are also a lot of mouth-breathing troglodytes... I don't see the multitude of Palladium junkies as a compelling argument for the quality of the product. McDonald's has served how many thus far?

And the pre-mdc, pre N&S revision was probably the single system I had the most fun with for ten years. I heavily houseruled it, but that more applied to the powers and powers/skills interaction than to the basic system.

And I had lots and lots of fun playing AD&D 1st Ed. It was still a crappy system. The good system is cool, but for many of us, just being around the table and rolling those dice is sufficient to create a pleasurable, memorable experience.

I despise Siembieda on a personal level because of his business practices. I had the first four chapters of a module written out for sale... until I read their submissions policy. At which point I scrapped the project.

I don't know about any of that, but I'm happy to take your word for it -- it's certainly consistent with the way he communicates in his books. I really hope he has aminor bicycle mishap and crotches himself on the cross-bar -- it somehow seems fitting.

The system has it's problems. The biggest is scaling power upwards past tenth level and the experience issues attendant with expanding the experience tables cost by 50,000 ex while not expanding any way to boost the ex within the game. For example, 10th level is between 70-130,000 ex.. Meaning that depending how stingy/generous the GM is with ex., it takes roughly a year (35-65 weeks at 1500-2000ex per shot). Then eleventh level another 30,000 to 130,000 ex to reach... or at least 3 1/2 to four additional months. That's because there is no scale modifier for the kind of threats faced at that level. And it just gets worse as the level increases; 14-15th takes minimum 50,000 ex or more than six months to get a level.

I've run Palladium games before, notably Heroes Unlimited and Rifts. The problems with the system are varied and manifold... the list is way too long to go into here. That certainly doesn't invalidate the fact that you ran good, enjoyable games with it and have a certain fondness for it.

The actual system, run by a GM that knows and understands the rules, actually works quite well. I'm not saying it's the best out there by any stretch, but I found it to be very playable and enjoyable. Until...

The same applies to any system, even the crappy ones. I still think it blows, but I don't intend that as a personal attack on you. It's not your fault that your taste is up your ass.. :D (that's a sincere smiley)

Rifts and everything post rifts w/the exception of the third revision of Heroes Unlimited is everything you said. Poorly balanced and contradictory, it became a caricature of the original system. I managed to run a very good game, but that was more my players than anything else.

Amen, QFT and your last statement seems to be consistent with my above points.

Cheers.

Wook

01-25-2007, 08:57 PM

Origen

01-25-2007, 09:32 PM

Not true. If I use a massive, aka endless, number of 1st level bowman all lobbing arrows in your general direction i can and will kill you in a reasonably short amount of time. You will be hit approximately 1 time in 20 regardless of anything.

How many of us had Infinite Deflection in the 33rd level Epic game?

Oh, that's right.

All of us.

A 3rd level spell shuts it down any time prior to that. Invisibility, Improved Invisibility, DR. I can go on and on.

A 20th level fighter has NOTHING to fear from 1st level critters. Nothing.

Wook

01-25-2007, 09:52 PM

Origen

01-25-2007, 09:57 PM

A 20th level fighter doesn't have any of the things you referenced and DR only slows it down, doesn't shut it down. I can hardly see how it matters though as my point was that you could combat the farce by doing something equally farcical. Not that the farce you pointed to didn't exist. :p

A 20th level fighter could very easily have all of those things, given the amount of treasure a standard fighter has, and the ability to make custom magic items.

Let's not even go into the fact that you can't fit an infinite amount of 1st level mooks with bows in the finite space of a bow's range, and how silly it is to even be talking about this.

A 1st level mook presents no lethal threat to a 20th level character except that the latter might get so bored that he commits suicide.

Starhawk

01-25-2007, 10:03 PM

A 20th level character with DR10 and 100% fortification (easy equipment for that level of play) IS immune to an infinite amount of level 1 warriors with bows.

Give them 1d8 longbows, even with a +1 pull for Strength on a composite, max damage is 9, and no crits for you. No damage ever. For any reason.

silverwhisper

01-26-2007, 10:42 AM

baelfyre, i owe you an apology. i heard something about that lawsuit thing years ago and it appears that was merely a rumor as i've searched for it and not found anything. i was in error.

as to your specific points: this is, it seems to me, like our previous discussion re: D&D3.5, is becoming more a matter of degree than anything else. you look at these examples as being hugely separate while ignoring the fact that the framework within which they exist are to me quite similar.

the class concept present in palladium does dictate a significant amount of things. and while certainly the ICE system uses it as well, other systems do not. you pointed to traveler, in which the career system--which is quite different from classes--gives skill bumps. i don't see that as a class system per se. and let's look at all the other early RPGs from that time, such as champions (point-based) or V&V; gamma world; dragonquest.

(i am, incidentally, unfamiliar w/ RCCs. in what book were those introduced?)

the spell slot concept still exists in palladium as it does in AD&D1. is the implementation similar? somewhat, although you appear to think they're more different than i do. do spells have spell levels? yes. how many other RPGs use these? how many use the same spell level concept that gygax & arneson used?

yes, i'm familiar w/ the differences in how one awards experience points. and while the ramifications of that can be significant, it is my position that the palladium tables are absolutely indebted to gygax & arneson's work prior.

does the combat engine have differences? absolutely. i will concede that they are more different than i thought at first--you're obviously more familiar w/ palladium's mechanics than i am.

do i dislike kevin siembieda? yes. for the reasons i have stated. i hate that a former trusted employee stole from him, too. have i had bad experiences w/ palladium systems? sure, but we've all had bad experiences w/ various systems. i've had good ones. but don't make the mistake of thinking that those things have any bearing whatsoever on my views of the ruleset.

see, to me, what constitutes "totally different" are things like, say...

traveler combat: roll 2d6, make your skill rank and you you hit/miss. you do damage, someone's ability score is reduced. now that is a totally different mechanic from how AD&D1 handled thinigs.

champions chargen: you get [points] as dictated by the GM to buy skills, advantages/disadvantages and powers. no class system at all. that is a totally different mechanic from ohw AD&D1 handled things.

those things are completely different to me, baelfyre. it's clear that we began this conversation w/ very different vocabularies, baelfyre, and it's something i ought to have remembered from our previous discussions re: D&D3.5.

and that degree of difference, which in aggregate you appear to see as some yawning chasm of the abyss and which i see as a crack in the pavement, is why i say it's a heavily-kludged up AD&D1. it is, to me, more similar to AD&D1 than any other RPG ever marketed by someone not actually possessing the license to the D&D name than any other.

Baelfyre

01-27-2007, 06:53 AM

baelfyre, i owe you an apology. i heard something about that lawsuit thing years ago and it appears that was merely a rumor as i've searched for it

Not necessarily. I have heard from people I trust David Hargrave had lawsuit issues too, but I can’t find any mention of them.

as to your specific points: this is, it seems to me, like our previous discussion re: D&D3.5, is becoming more a matter of degree than anything else. you look at these examples as being hugely separate while ignoring the fact that the framework within which they exist are to me quite similar.

Not really. You are trying to say the equivalent of “an airplane has an internal combustion engine and so is a kludged together car”. Or, at least, that's how I'm interpreting it. While both Palladium and D&D share certain attributes (class/ex) their use of those is so different as to render them completely separate entities. You also fail to take into account the things that palladium had that were totally new at the time.

This applies to character generation, play, and character advancement.

the class concept present in palladium does dictate a significant amount of things. and while certainly the ICE system uses it as well, other systems do not. you pointed to traveler, in which the career system--which is quite different from classes--gives skill bumps. i don't see that as a class system per se. and let's look at all the other early RPGs from that time, such as champions (point-based) or V&V; gamma world; dragonquest.

The career paths in Traveller define access to skills. Therefore, they are “classes” in the same sense that Palladium uses, if not D & D, where your class was the be-all end-all of what your character could ever do.

(i am, incidentally, unfamiliar w/ RCCs. in what book were those introduced?)

RCC is Racial Character class. Beyond the Supernatural introduced the concept of characters defined by how they were born as opposed to standard educational paths, called Psychic Character Classes. Rifts introduced the official RCC; things whose skills and abilities were defined by race. Further, almost all of the non-rifts books don’t have OCC’s in the classic sense with a couple of individual exceptions. Most characters have an education level which determines their skills.

I made a mistake; I thought the changelings were introduced as an RCC in the Palladium RPG.

the spell slot concept still exists in palladium as it does in AD&D1. is the implementation similar? somewhat, although you appear to think they're more different than i do. do spells have spell levels? yes. how many other RPGs use these? how many use the same spell level concept that gygax & arneson used?

Arduin, and as I recall Rolemaster and Tunnels and Trolls used the spell level concept.. Lords of Creation used something similar as well. That’s because it’s a useful concept to group spells by power and/or complexity.

Palladium does not use spell slots. It uses spells per day, which is a completely different concept. It is fluid, because it opens your options.

Spell slots are inherently static magic casting; it limits your spell casting by limiting your options.

Take a 7th level palladium wizard who knows 4 spells for each level he can cast and a D & D mage who has 8 spells for each level he can cast.

The Palladium mage has 28 possible spells that he can cast, and can cast any of them 11 times a day.

The D & D mage has 32 possible spells he can cast. Until he memorizes them.
Then all of a sudden he has 10 spells he has acces to for that day.

They have an encounter, the palladium mage still has 28 possible options.
The D&D mage has 10.

Next encounter, the D & D mage has only 9 while the Palladium mage still has 28.
Continue and the D & D mage has options that only decrease while the Palladium mage’s are staying the same.

Static, as opposed to fluid.

That is also completely ignoring the other two major styles of magic in Palladium. D & D has NO equivalent for either the diabolist or the summoner. Neither of them use leveled “spells” AT ALL and they both use activations per day to initiate their effects.

So two thirds of the magic in palladium render your statement completely irrelevant as well as wrong.

Nor did I even mention (yet) the priests and clergy.

yes, i'm familiar w/ the differences in how one awards experience points. and while the ramifications of that can be significant, it is my position that the palladium tables are absolutely indebted to gygax & arneson's work prior.

Significant?

D & D rewards ex for:

Killing monsters
Gold
Magic items
Possible ex for subverting traps/tricks

Palladium rewards ex for

Performing a skill
Clever, but futile idea
Clever, useful idea
Quick thinking idea or action
A critical plan or action that saves the character or small groups lives
A critical plan or action that saves the entire group or many people
endangering the character own life to help others
Self sacrifice (or potential self sacrifice) in a life and death situation
Avoiding unnecessary violence
Deductive reasoning or insight
Good judgement
Playing in character bonus
Daring (clever or not)
Killing or subduing a minor menace
Killing or subduing a major menace
Killing or subduing a great menace

One rewards killing and looting.

The other rewards drama, daring, insight, judgement, self sacrifice and defeating enemies.

That’s like night and day, man. It’s a difference that affects play and players as well.

And the numbers themselves? This is a case where D & D has dynamic numbers (the experience available increases with level) as opposed Palladiums static experience awards.

does the combat engine have differences? absolutely. i will concede that they are more different than i thought at first--you're obviously more familiar w/ palladium's mechanics than i am.

Good. Just a note, I left several things out of the Palladium side, because they only apply rarely.

do i dislike kevin siembieda? yes. for the reasons i have stated. i hate that a former trusted employee stole from him, too. have i had bad experiences w/ palladium systems? sure, but we've all had bad experiences w/ various systems. i've had good ones. but don't make the mistake of thinking that those things have any bearing whatsoever on my views of the ruleset.

Ok. I’d like to say that I’m not trying to convince you that it is a good ruleset. But it’s not “kludged together D & d”.

see, to me, what constitutes "totally different" are things like, say...

traveler combat: roll 2d6, make your skill rank and you you hit/miss. you do damage, someone's ability score is reduced. now that is a totally different mechanic from how AD&D1 handled thinigs.

champions chargen: you get [points] as dictated by the GM to buy skills, advantages/disadvantages and powers. no class system at all. that is a totally different mechanic from ohw AD&D1 handled things.

Yet I’ve just shown the Magic mechanic to be completely conceptually and mechanically different, the experience mechanic to be conceptually and mechanically different, the combat mechanic to be mechanically and conceptually different, and I haven’t even started yet on how those differences affect actual game play.

those things are completely different to me, baelfyre. it's clear that we began this conversation w/ very different vocabularies, baelfyre, and it's something i ought to have remembered from our previous discussions re: D&D3.5.

and that degree of difference, which in aggregate you appear to see as some yawning chasm of the abyss and which i see as a crack in the pavement, is why i say it's a heavily-kludged up AD&D1. it is, to me, more similar to AD&D1 than any other RPG ever marketed by someone not actually possessing the license to the D&D name than any other.

If every single mechanical aspect of play is different, then it is not made from, or “kludged together” from another system.

If the mechanical changes result in a totally different kind of game, then it is not made from, or “kludged together” from another system.

If the conceptual underpinnings of the game are different, it is not made from, or "kludged together" from another system.

The Palladium RPG is point of fact descended from from the game system introduced in Palladium’s first book, Mechanoid Invasion.

Baelfyre

01-27-2007, 06:54 AM

Chimaera: Dude, you put me on iggy after a very heated argument over an issue that was clearly deeply personal to both of us. I'm not going to lie and say that I didn't think you were being a bit of a sissy to put me on iggy, but if you're willing to give me another chance, I certainly appreciate it. I dish ou thte snark on occasion, but I take it well too... I like to think of myself as something of a connoissieur of fine snark, in fact, even if I'm the target. In other words, don't sweat snarking me -- it's not as if I'm not asking for it sometimes.

I actually consider snark to be proof that you cannot win your argument on the strength of your points. So I try to avoid it, but frequently fail. But I do try.

That particular conversation hit a number of my buttons, and I didn't react well. I had a page and half of bile and venom put together... and stopped.

If you were the person I thought you to be, it was meaningless. If you weren't, it would have been wrong to bring that level of venom to the table.

And there are also a lot of mouth-breathing troglodytes... I don't see the multitude of Palladium junkies as a compelling argument for the quality of the product. McDonald's has served how many thus far?

Yet, whatever the percentage of idiots are, the more people there are in a group the more that will have a brain.

And I had lots and lots of fun playing AD&D 1st Ed. It was still a crappy system. The good system is cool, but for many of us, just being around the table and rolling those dice is sufficient to create a pleasurable, memorable experience.

Very true. I am lucky to have had many gifted, humorous players.

BTW, I don't agree that AD & D is a crappy system. Limited, yes, but sometimes simplicity can be fun.

The same applies to any system, even the crappy ones. I still think it blows, but I don't intend that as a personal attack on you. It's not your fault that your taste is up your ass.. (thats a sincere smiley)

Taken in the spirit given. I smiled when I read it.

Cheers back.

Chimaera

01-27-2007, 09:19 AM

I actually consider snark to be proof that you cannot win your argument on the strength of your points. So I try to avoid it, but frequently fail. But I do try.

Winning an argument requires an opponent who is willing to be convinced. This is rarely the case -- as such, snark at least makes it a little more entertaining than just masturbating.

That particular conversation hit a number of my buttons, and I didn't react well. I had a page and half of bile and venom put together... and stopped.

Fair enough -- I got that you were pissed. I was too. Don't hold back next time -- bottling shit like that up gives you cancer.

If you were the person I thought you to be, it was meaningless. If you weren't, it would have been wrong to bring that level of venom to the table.

I disagree -- it may or may not have had an effect on me other than to cement the fact that I thought you were being a huge dill-hole, but you may have enjoyed a somewhat cathartic experience. You do realize that I was right, right? :sagrin:

Yet, whatever the percentage of idiots are, the more people there are in a group the more that will have a brain.

No, the higher the liklihood that someone in the group will have a brain, not the certainty. And even a having a brain doen't mean you have good-taste. Four people survived Jonestown, but they were still followers of Jim Jones... they may have been smart enough to avoid the Kool-Aid, but they were still members of a cult.

Very true. I am lucky to have had many gifted, humorous players.

Cool :)

BTW, I don't agree that AD & D is a crappy system. Limited, yes, but sometimes simplicity can be fun.

Limited != simple and AD&D was most certainly not a simple system. It lacked unified, consistent mechanics as was a concantenation of cludges, as well as being conceptually muddy.

Taken in the spirit given. I smiled when I read it.

Cheers back.

Heh heh :D

Baelfyre

01-28-2007, 03:47 AM

Winning an argument requires an opponent who is willing to be convinced. This is rarely the case -- as such, snark at least makes it a little more entertaining than just masturbating.

Somewhat true, though I would argue that nobody ever wins an argument. Debates, on the other hand, can be won if there are mutually agreed upon terms agreed on to begin with.

What we were having, though, definitely merited the term argument as opposed to debate.

Fair enough -- I got that you were pissed. I was too. Don't hold back next time -- bottling shit like that up gives you cancer.

Yeah, I got that impression. Two+ pissed off people does not a rational discussion make.

I disagree -- it may or may not have had an effect on me other than to cement the fact that I thought you were being a huge dill-hole, but you may have enjoyed a somewhat cathartic experience. You do realize that I was right, right? :sagrin:

The cathartic experience wouldn't have been worth what I paid for it. It is against my code to attack, verbally or otherwise, out of anger. If you are going to live outside society's rules, the rules you set yourself become even more important.

Besides, words don't really do the catharsis thing for me. Mega violent video games, on the other hand...

oh and as far as being right?
:signs065: :troutslap: :flipoff:

No, the higher the liklihood that someone in the group will have a brain, not the certainty. And even a having a brain doen't mean you have good-taste. Four people survived Jonestown, but they were still followers of Jim Jones... they may have been smart enough to avoid the Kool-Aid, but they were still members of a cult.

Yes but Palladium is not a cult!
[remembers people giving Siembieda money for nothing]

okay, there is just the slightest, most minute possibility that I may possibly have made just the tiniest error...

nah.

Limited != simple and AD&D was most certainly not a simple system. It lacked unified, consistent mechanics as was a concantenation of cludges, as well as being conceptually muddy.

You're right. I ran/played it for so long that I internalized the system to the point that I (even now) didn't consciously realize how much there was to it and let the rosy glasses of memory blind me. Grappling and Brawling... BLECHH!

Chimaera

01-28-2007, 08:59 AM

B, you and me need to grab a beer some day... :D

Baelfyre

01-29-2007, 04:29 AM

You're buying, right?

:sasmokin:

Chimaera

01-29-2007, 07:53 AM

Sure, I'm buying... ;) :D

silverwhisper

01-31-2007, 12:45 PM

Baelfyre

01-31-2007, 05:57 PM

baelfyre: i've not been replying as it's a very lengthy reply and i haven't had the time to do so until now. i am drafting a response, which i believe i will be posting this evening or perhaps tomorrow morning. sorry for the delay.

No problem. I'll look forward to it.

Edit: I am in the middle of a massive computer failure/restore. While I have currently convinced the computer that I am indeed an administrator and that I have the right to access some of my files, it's being stubborn about others. So it may be a day or two on my end to even see your reply.

silverwhisper

02-07-2007, 05:08 PM

as you can see, it's been nearly a week since my own reply. i see you've been posting elsewhere so i'm glad to hear that your computer woes are no more.

1. lawsuit. one would think that for as big as both D&D & palladium are, one of us would have been able to find something online about it. i will accept that this is simply untrue.

2. had you led w/ the mechanoid invasion ancestry, our conversation would have flowed entirely differently, i assure you. i see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palladium_Books) that work was released in 1981, not long after T$R launched the RPG as a market. as i am unfamiliar w/ that particular work, i cannot meaningfully discuss comparisons b/n the games--in this, i freely confess i do not know what i'm talking about.

i've been a gamer since 1979 (i think--my memory is notoriously bad). i'm a rules geek and tinkerer, as you know. i bristled when you earlier said that i don't know what i'm talking about. i'm generally a pretty modest fellow but about some things, i have a certain degree of confidence. your comment and my reaction to it have changed the tenor of our interaction. i apologize for that.

3. i still feel that palladium is mechanically heavily-indebted to gygax & arneson's work. however, given that siembieda was a very early pioneer, i think that it's hard for me, having the perspective of 3 whole decades of RPGs and their mechanics, to appreciate what must have seemed in the late 70s and early 80s to have seemed like immutable laws of gaming. and while champions certainly blazed a wildly different trail, it was a different genre.

in summary: while i continue to think there's a significant degree of influence, i hereby recant.

ed

Baelfyre

02-07-2007, 06:01 PM

silverwhisper: as you can see, it's been nearly a week since my own reply. i see you've been posting elsewhere so i'm glad to hear that your computer woes are no more.

No more is a bit strong. I seem to have lost twenty gig off my hard drive. And we won't even mention the denying windows access to windows incident.

1. lawsuit. one would think that for as big as both D&D & palladium are, one of us would have been able to find something online about it. i will accept that this is simply untrue.

Such things have been kept private before. I'm not going to make a judgement one way or the other at this point.

2. had you led w/ the mechanoid invasion ancestry, our conversation would have flowed entirely differently, i assure you. i see that work was released in 1981, not long after T$R launched the RPG as a market. as i am unfamiliar w/ that particular work, i cannot meaningfully discuss comparisons b/n the games--in this, i freely confess i do not know what i'm talking about.

I knew it, but didn't think to bring it up till I was doing research as a result of our conversation.

Mechanoids is a sci-fi based game, with some psionics.

i've been a gamer since 1979 (i think--my memory is notoriously bad). i'm a rules geek and tinkerer, as you know. i bristled when you earlier said that i don't know what i'm talking about. i'm generally a pretty modest fellow but about some things, i have a certain degree of confidence. your comment and my reaction to it have changed the tenor of our interaction. i apologize for that.

I'm sorry as well. It was ill done of me; I was honestly not trying to be nasty. I was trying to get your attention, since you'd blown me off several times when I tried to explain that they were indeed quite different.

I'm beyond a rules geek/tinkerer myself. I have literally seen one system that I run with no adjustments at all. For the most part, I make fairly major changes to virtually every system.

3. i still feel that palladium is mechanically heavily-indebted to gygax & arneson's work. however, given that siembieda was a very early pioneer, i think that it's hard for me, having the perspective of 3 whole decades of RPGs and their mechanics, to appreciate what must have seemed in the late 70s and early 80s to have seemed like immutable laws of gaming. and while champions certainly blazed a wildly different trail, it was a different genre.

in summary: while i continue to think there's a significant degree of influence, i hereby recant.

I heartily agree that there is a heavy degree of influence.

And it's all good.
:thumbup:

silverwhisper

02-07-2007, 06:02 PM

i appreciate your graciousness in victory, baelfyre. would that i could buy you a drink now. :>

Baelfyre

02-07-2007, 08:22 PM

We (that's the royal we, I might add) take visa, mastercard, paypal, and, of course, BLOOD AND SOULS FOR ARIOCH!

Ahem. Sorry. Got a little carried away there.

Heh.

Next time we're in the same city, I'll look forward to it.

silverwhisper

02-08-2007, 04:57 AM

moorcock references trump even frank miller references. :D

Archer

02-08-2007, 08:36 AM

random ideas on true grit

I'll admit haven't played D&D in a long while (and don't remember how 3.5 deals with it) but giving some thought into revamping the hit point system without screwing up everything else. I like the way the HERO system separates stun damage from killing damage. Just spitballing here:

Keep the current hit point system but in addition give the person a number of times they can take a hit equal to their CON score (or some multiple of their CON score). If they get hit more times than their CON score, they fall over dead from the number of wounds they have. Healing spells and potions heal these CON wounds in addition to restoring hit points. CON wounds heal naturally at a rate of 1 per day or 2 per day of complete rest or doctor's care. Allow feat purchase of the ability to take additional wounds without falling over dead.

Wounds are going to be visible so opponents are going to be more likely to gang up on people who are wounded.

I'm thinking that making getting hit provide a continuing drawback that the PCs will be motivated to back off from unnecessary fights, retreat when needed, hide while healing, and sneak around more in general. But without the drawback of instant kills from critical hits that can happen in some systems.

-----------

I like the idea of bonuses for outnumbering an opponent in melee. I don't think summoned creatures by the PCs should be a problem. Most summoned creatures aren't going to have a natural grasp of tactics and an instant grasp of the battlefield to know which enemy needs to be attacked and when. And giving detailed, specific, understandable instructions to summoned creatures in the middle of combat isn't realistic. A group of raiders, OTOH, probably have worked together long enough to be able to adapt to the changing battlefield and figure out what to do to maximize their advantages.

I also think that if one person is outnumbered 5-1 by people of similar size/strength that they ought to be able to rush him, bear him down to the ground, and disarm him. That one person might be able to get in one good wack with his weapon before he's taken down but he's not going to get a second swing of his weapon unless his opponents chose to let him. So that level 20 fighter facing an angry mob of townsfolk either needs to do a great job of intimidating the group or learn to run really fast. Because he's not going to get bored hacking them down.

-----------

How about any spell that duplicates or invalidates a skill gets bumped up 2-3 levels? Knock seems like it'd be much less of a threat to invalidate rogues as a 5th level spell.

-----------

Nerf the treasure output but not the prices for nice things. For the most part of history, money was a rarity and hard to come by. Random monsters shouldn't have cash. If they've got treasure, its probably peasant goods they got in a raid or maybe trade goods from robbing a traveling merchant.

Since money is "more valuable", people who offer to pay money are going to try to welsh on paying and the PCs are going to get screwed over from time to time. If someone has the wealth to offer to pay the PCs a wad of money then they likely have the influence necessary to make the PCS back down from throttling them. You can't just kill Archduke Ferdinand, the king's cousin, the local lord who has the fealty of 20 knights, the local priest, etc. Heck, the PCs shouldn't be able to get away with killing the local innkeeper without earning them much more trouble than its worth.

-----------

Make sure to have NPCs react to PCs based on how they appear. If the PCs are clean and dressed in nice clothing, they're going to look more competent to prospective employers. And they're going to look wealthy to merchants who will be quoting prices to them. Someone who looks like a thief is going to get hassled by the law. People who look poor will get hassled by the law. People who look wealthy get targeted by thieves.