Core Rules Only

[Rystil Arden]

Do you really need mechanics for your concept to be realized?

I contend that yes, you do. Otherwise, technically (and I realise this is an extreme example), you could realise any concept with the Fighter class. If your concept was a Wizard or casting type, you dress up in robes and pretend to cast spells, and they just don't work the way you want (because they don't do anything). If it was a Rogue type, you backstab people with light blades (you don't do any extra damage, of course) and buy low cross-class ranks in trained-only Rogue skills so at least you can do them (you won't be good at it, but you can Disable Devices, etc). If it was a Bard, you get cross-class ranks in Perform. For a Barbarian, you just claim to be illiterate, wear light armour and carry an axe, charging around and acting irrationally (no benefits for Rage though), etc.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Do you really need mechanics for your concept to be realized?

Yes.

Those mechanics can be as simple as defining your 10 dice of narrative awesome as "my concept" - but that doesn't work in D&D.

If you have a crunchy system that represents characters with specific mechanical abilities, you need specific mechanics to represent those abilities - or else the character doesn't have them. Simple as that. You can play the role AS THOUGH the character had the abilities in question - but he doesn't. Without the mechanics, if those abilities would let him Do Something Cool... he won't do the Cool Thing. Without the mechanics, if those abilities would save the party from otherwise certain doom... the party won't get saved.

You can play a barbarian who BELIEVES the wind tells him which way to go, as a superstition - but in-game, the wind isn't going to answer his question unless he has the ability to listen to the wind. Playing a character with false superstitions can be fun; so can playing a character with real mystical abilities. The two are MECHANICALLY different.

Why would you possibly play a game that defines precise mechanical abilities (down to the level of making 'Sneak Attack,' 'Power Attack' and 'Dodge' feats or class features) if you don't want defined abilities?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Yes.

Those mechanics can be as simple as defining your 10 dice of narrative awesome as "my concept" - but that doesn't work in D&D.

If you have a crunchy system that represents characters with specific mechanical abilities, you need specific mechanics to represent those abilities - or else the character doesn't have them. Simple as that. You can play the role AS THOUGH the character had the abilities in question - but he doesn't. Without the mechanics, if those abilities would let him Do Something Cool... he won't do the Cool Thing. Without the mechanics, if those abilities would save the party from otherwise certain doom... the party won't get saved.

You can play a barbarian who BELIEVES the wind tells him which way to go, as a superstition - but in-game, the wind isn't going to answer his question unless he has the ability to listen to the wind. Playing a character with false superstitions can be fun; so can playing a character with real mystical abilities. The two are MECHANICALLY different.

Why would you possibly play a game that defines precise mechanical abilities (down to the level of making 'Sneak Attack,' 'Power Attack' and 'Dodge' feats or class features) if you don't want defined abilities?

This sums up what I said above succinctly and probably more demonstratively than my example.

 

[IcyCool]

If you have a crunchy system that represents characters with specific mechanical abilities, you need specific mechanics to represent those abilities - or else the character doesn't have them. Simple as that. You can play the role AS THOUGH the character had the abilities in question - but he doesn't. Without the mechanics, if those abilities would let him Do Something Cool... he won't do the Cool Thing. Without the mechanics, if those abilities would save the party from otherwise certain doom... the party won't get saved.

So you want the mechanics to directly affect your character concept? What did you do when only the 3.0E core books were out?

You can play a barbarian who BELIEVES the wind tells him which way to go, as a superstition - but in-game, the wind isn't going to answer his question unless he has the ability to listen to the wind. Playing a character with false superstitions can be fun; so can playing a character with real mystical abilities. The two are MECHANICALLY different.

The wind and the barbarian does give the GM the opportunity to give hints or potentially useful information to the group. No "Gather Information Check" necessary.

Why would you possibly play a game that defines precise mechanical abilities (down to the level of making 'Sneak Attack,' 'Power Attack' and 'Dodge' feats or class features) if you don't want defined abilities?

I thought the question was "Would you play in a core rules only game?" Several of the concepts mentioned could be played in the core rules. There isn't a mechanic for all of the neat abilities of the characters. Some of those would be better represented mechanically with the addition of supplemental material. But they can be represented in core.

Your point seems to be that you wouldn't play those concepts in a core only game because they don't have enough of their abilities represented in the mechanics?

I can respect that, if that's the case. I just don't agree with it.

 

[iwatt]

I thought the question was "Would you play in a core rules only game?" Several of the concepts mentioned could be played in the core rules. There isn't a mechanic for all of the neat abilities of the characters. Some of those would be better represented mechanically with the addition of supplemental material. But they can be represented in core.

I agree with this. I don't think anybody is arguing that some abilities aren't better represented by different mechanics. But as IcyCool says, most of these "unplayable by core" concepts are available with a modicum of player-GM compromise.

 

[Rystil Arden]

The wind and the barbarian does give the GM the opportunity to give hints or potentially useful information to the group. No "Gather Information Check" necessary.

As MEM mentioned above--if the wind is actually giving the barbarian hints or potentially-useful information, then the barbarian actually has an extra stealth class feature. It is probably more minor, but in spirit quite similar to a Fighter who claims he is backstabbing the enemy and the GM awards him extra Sneak Attack damage (or claims he is really quite angry and the GM awards him Barbarian Rage).

 

[Voadam]

I would play in such a game with no problem. I haven't even played every PH race yet. I am more interested in playing different things, but I would be fine with core only and playing character types I have played before.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I agree with this. I don't think anybody is arguing that some abilities aren't better represented by different mechanics. But as IcyCool says, most of these "unplayable by core" concepts are available with a modicum of player-GM compromise.

Which is then not what I would define as 'core only.'

So you want the mechanics to directly affect your character concept? What did you do when only the 3.0E core books were out?

Played other games?

Seriously, I was playing completely freeform games and the occasional bout of non-D&D RPGs at the time the 3e core books came out. It wasn't until several years later - actually after d20 Modern came out - that I started playing D&D 3.0.

However, based on my experience with other games, if I had played D&D right after 3.0 came out, I probably would have used extensive houserules, or, more likely, played a different system.

One other thing: for most of the 'games' I played at the time D&D 3.0 came out, actually having to define my character or character's abilities in terms of x dice of awesome was uncharacteristically restricted. I've played completely freeform games with no mechanics of any kind; in fact, I really like those games (with the right group). But when I play a game that actually does have mechanics for abilities, I want my abilities to be tied to the mechanics. Simple as that.

I thought the question was "Would you play in a core rules only game?" Several of the concepts mentioned could be played in the core rules. There isn't a mechanic for all of the neat abilities of the characters. Some of those would be better represented mechanically with the addition of supplemental material. But they can be represented in core.

They can be represented in core + houserules, anyway. I don't consider that the same as core.

Keep in mind, the ONLY reason I would play D&D or d20 over, say, SilCore or Mutants & Masterminds is because the things I want to use are already statted up. If I didn't mind making NPCs and monsters and races and character templates/classes and weapons and feats/class features/special abilities, I'd use a different system. My enjoyment of the d20 system in general and D&D in particular is entirely based on the vast amounts of material available for it.

And it turns out, that's a really big draw for me. I slightly prefer HERO to d20 in play - but I'd be vastly more likely to GM a d20 game, and somewhat more likely to play in one, because I don't have time to design the amount of material I want in HERO, and in d20 someone already did the work for me.

Playing a core only game would remove what, for me, is the number one reason I would want to play this particular game in the first place.

Your point seems to be that you wouldn't play those concepts in a core only game because they don't have enough of their abilities represented in the mechanics?

I can respect that, if that's the case. I just don't agree with it.

Actually, that's my understanding of Rystil Arden's point.

MY point is that I wouldn't play a core rules only D&D game because I don't like the core setting elements of D&D and find D&D about middle of the road in terms of how much I enjoy the system.

 

[Mycanid]

Sure ... why not?

 

[IcyCool]

MY point is that I wouldn't play a core rules only D&D game because I don't like the core setting elements of D&D and find D&D about middle of the road in terms of how much I enjoy the system.

Fair enough.