iwatt said:
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.'
IcyCool said:
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.
IcyCool said:
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.
IcyCool said:
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.