General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
The whole thing was an example of the Tragedy of the Commons
Besides, I believe that the gaming community is better served by people making new systems, rather than staying inside the limitations of 3.5 D20
Case in point, the new Song of Ice and Fire RPG by Green Ronin is a lot more interesting with its own system than it was when it was just another Fantasy D20 game
Which other rpg games do you believe may have been ill-served by being shoehorned into a D20 "straightjacket"?
Which other rpg games do you believe may have been ill-served by being shoehorned into a D20 "straightjacket"?
I'll actually chime in on this one and state Iron Kingdoms. IK is a wonderful world with an incredible amount of story potential and fun to be had, but it never really fit into d20.
Which other rpg games do you believe may have been ill-served by being shoehorned into a D20 "straightjacket"?
Fading Suns and Deadlands both come to mind. Both of those d20 conversions were poor imitations of the original systems. Also, please note that I'm no huge fan of the original Deadlands mechanics, but still acknowledge that they were a better fit for an Old West RPG than the d20 mechanics were.
The OGL was designed to allow third parties to make supplements for D&D, not whole new games that would compete with it.
Wrong. Get your facts straight and try again
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Which other rpg games do you believe may have been ill-served by being shoehorned into a D20 "straightjacket"?
Star Wars for starters; "level-based" advancement in such a setting doesn't feel right. And while I applaud the creators of Saga for a good system, I can't say I find it a good fit for the SW universe.
The problem comes when you have "mixed" parties of characters. Take the Phantom Menace; you have Amidala (4th level?) Anakin (first, if even), Obi-Wan (6th), Jar-Jar (1st) and Qui-Gon (14th+) on an "adventuring group" together. The level disparity from the talented kid to the Jedi Master is so vast that, in game, anything that would challenge Qui-Gon would KILL the others and anything geared for them would be slaughtered by Qui-Gon. The same could be said of the OT with Han/Chewie being high-level/experienced, Leia moderately competent, and Luke fresh off the farm hanging out with Jedi Master Obi-Wan again.
As much as I hate to say it, a level-less system (similar to WEG's d6, but with a better reigned-in Force mechanic) would probably be better to handling the wide variety of skills and experience levels that a typical SW group would possess.
I dunno. . . ever since I saw American Badass stat up Stephen Hawking in CoC d20, I was sold on the system — not as a horror game, but as unintentional comedy gold. That said, at lower levels, I think it's a very good approximation of BRP horror, but at high levels it falls into the "every character is an unstoppable combat badass" trap.
Which other rpg games do you believe may have been ill-served by being shoehorned into a D20 "straightjacket"?
Traveller T20 is my prime example.
Swashbuckling Adventures, the D20 version of Seventh Sea.
Mongoose's D20 Conan never did it for me.
As others have mentioned, Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars and to some degree the Oriental Adventures version of Rokugan (which didn't quite come off, but wasn't as badly suited imo). And while I never played non-d20 Deadlands or Fading Suns, but the rules always seemed to be reaching for something that wasn't there.
Some of them could I think have been done better as a variant of D20 modern, but others really didn't seem to work with class and level based mechanics.
The problem comes when you have "mixed" parties of characters. Take the Phantom Menace; you have Amidala (4th level?) Anakin (first, if even), Obi-Wan (6th), Jar-Jar (1st) and Qui-Gon (14th+) on an "adventuring group" together. The level disparity from the talented kid to the Jedi Master is so vast that, in game, anything that would challenge Qui-Gon would KILL the others and anything geared for them would be slaughtered by Qui-Gon.
Of course, when you check the movies, you realize that this was handled by having all the characters go off on their own. Anakin wasn't with the others when he shot down the Droid control ship, Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon went off to fight the Sith on his own, and Amidala was on her own when she took on the Vice-Roy.
I'm not sure that that model is appropriate for a game, it seems like splitting the party so to speak was the default. Might work for a movie, not so good when you have 1 person doing things and the rest sitting idle.
Maybe there are people who like that style of play, but I can't say it appeals to me. No matter what the system might be.
Which other rpg games do you believe may have been ill-served by being shoehorned into a D20 "straightjacket"?
In my opinion, licensed properties:
Babylon 5
Black Company
Conan
Farscape
Stargate
Starship Troopers
Star Wars
Thieves World
It's the class/level stucture with level based class bonus abilities, hit point/vitality increases, etc. that just doesn't do it for me when it comes to licensed properties based off of novels and movies.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Are you really a new member? Because it has been linked and quoted a gazillion times. So many times that I didn't think a link was needed to convince someone that it wasn't just a number I was pulling out of my behind.
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
I find the conclusion in 4.4 that with 4E, WotC may have "created their own competition" rather strange. You could argue that was a result of the OGL in 3E, where publishers published self-contained RPGs using the license, and that's one reason they wanted to move away from that degree of openness. It's also strange considering the admission in the next paragraph that the 3PPs have a "tiny market".
But in effect, WOTC DID create its own competitors via the GSL, for without it Pathfinder wouldnt have come about, among other things.
That said, at lower levels, I think it's a very good approximation of BRP horror, but at high levels it falls into the "every character is an unstoppable combat badass" trap.
Well, aside from the fort save every time you take damage or die...
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
Insulting me is not going to further convince me of your assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99
Because it has been linked and quoted a gazillion times. So many times that I didn't think a link was needed to convince someone that it wasn't just a number I was pulling out of my behind.
I would like to read the original legal complaint documents myself, and possibly the original study which determined that 6-7 million D&D players figure (or at least whatever sections have been published publicly).
I don't take these figures at face value.
Last edited by ggroy; 28th June 2009 at 12:08 AM..
I'll give free XP to anyone who comes up with an even semi plausible explanation of how this could be done. Its contract law, not witchery.
Continuiously sue even if you cant win and bankrupt the other party or until they cant defend themselves anymore. Thats generally what larger corporations do.
They do actually have to win. They just have to outlast the other party.
Continuiously sue even if you cant win and bankrupt the other party or until they cant defend themselves anymore. Thats generally what larger corporations do.
Companies that do this risk alienating their fan base... Specially in such a small market such as pen and paper RPGs
WotC/Hasbro would be foolish to do such a thing for such a small payoff
__________________ "I am King of the Romans and above the rules of grammar!" - Sigismund, Roman Emperor and my new hero
"Craft and profession skills are a tax on people who believe characterization and back-story are important." - Obryn
"Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D party is to medieval armies what the A-team is to modern police." - Eamon
"I realize falling isn't specifically a push, pull, or slide, but I'd heavily argue that gravity is forced movement." - Old Gumphrey
Companies that do this risk alienating their fan base... Specially in such a small market such as pen and paper RPGs
WotC/Hasbro would be foolish to do such a thing for such a small payoff
They also risk pissing off judges, having their lawyers disbarred, penalties applied, etc.
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
Well, aside from the fort save every time you take damage or die...
The rules that you allude to aren't actually in the CoC d20 rule book. Perhaps your Keeper was using house rules?
There is a Massive Damage rule, but it isn't applicable every time that a PC takes damage — only if they take more than 10 damage as the result of a single attack. That said, yes, this is the one thing can undo a high level CoC d20 character.
There is no Fortitude save for Dying in CoC d20. There is a 1d10 chance to stabilize after being reduced to zero Hit Points, but this mechanic actually helps the PCs survive, as opposed to hastening their demise. A successful Heal check automatically stabilizes them.
And, of course, none of that prevents a high level CoC d20 character from hitting almost every time in combat (or being almost impossible to hit in combat).
Frex, a 15th level Defense Option character has Base Save Bonuses of +5, +9, and +9, with two attacks per round — the first with a Base Attack Bonus of +7 and the second with a Base Attack Bonus of +2, respectively.
A 15th level Offense Option charcter, OTOH, has Base Save Bonuses of +5, +5, and +9, with three attacks per round — the first with a Base Attack Bonus of +12, the second with a Base Attack Bonus of +7, and the third with a base attack bonus of +2, respectively.
By level 15, Stephen Hawking would have 18 Core skill ranks and 7 feats — all of which I assume would be Skill Emphasis. This is the one feat in CoC d20 that boosts skills — and it only grants a +3 bonus to one skill for each time it is taken. It does not stack and may not be purchased for a single skill multiple times. I'll be generous and assume an Intelligence rating of 18, which grants a +4 bonus to all knowledge skills.
This still wouldn't be enough to cover the fields of Hawking's multiple degrees, both honorary and official, while modeling his insight into such things. And our character is already into the deadly combatant range if he's an Offense Option character. If he's a Defense Option character, he's already very hard to hit.
I think this is how AB came up with the Stephen Hawking Badass Build at Level 20. There simply aren't any feats in the game that allow one to build up lots of knowledge skill without also taking lots of levels (which, in turn, results in lots of combat bonuses).
As I said before, none of this is an issue at lower levels, but only the Massive Damage rule stands between high level CoC d20 characters and super-heroics (and, even that doesn't post too much threat once you're boasting high Base Save Bonuses).
The rules that you allude to aren't actually in the CoC d20 rule book. Perhaps your Keeper was using house rules?
There is a Massive Damage rule, but it isn't applicable every time that a PC takes damage — only if they take more than 10 damage as the result of a single attack. That said, yes, this is the one thing can undo a high level CoC d20 character.
10 damage at level 15 is pretty common. A shoggoth lord (a CR 15 creature) has a +20/+15/+10 Attack (1d6+7 damage) with an engulf power (opposed grapple check to avoid) that does at least 13 damage every round. So yes, while you don't save or die on every single hit, at the higher levels you are going to be making fort saves pretty regularly anyway.
In the one modern campaign I played, the massive damage rule quickly led me to realize that your HP don't matter near as much as your ability to not get hit and to make fort saves regularly.
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
That said, at lower levels, I think it's a very good approximation of BRP horror, but at high levels it falls into the "every character is an unstoppable combat badass" trap.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
