You get equipment list. DM gets rest.

[JacktheRabbit]

My goal would be to get players to focus on the story, the challenges, and how their character fit into the world, and less on the raw numbers.

Of course this will take special players. The munchkin whose idea of character creation is to map out their levels and feat progression from 1 to 20 won't like it at all.

But a system like this will also be more forgiving. Let say your fighter runs into a secret warrior society you think is damn cool. You work with them and you want to join them. In regular rules there is a good chance you are missing some prerequisite skills and feats. You won't be joining the order for several more levels and its a letdown.

With the DM running the sheets, at least in my view, those limits aren't there. If you have played an dedicated undead hating fighter, you meet the ancient society of "put the pointy stick into the vampire" and you impress them, well then you are in. There is no, sorry you down have the endurance feat come back next month. That just kills it for me.

 

[Troll Slayer]

I tried something similar once with 3.5. I got the idea from Unknown Armies which keeps Life Points and Magic Charges secret. Instead of tracking numbers, the players get a description of how they are feeling, or how much magic they feel within them. It's up to them to then decide whether to fight on, attempt a spell or seek other means of resolution.

I only kept HP secret at first as a test run and the players were pretty meh on the whole thing. I guess for a more gritty/horror game it works because this was the same group who really enjoyed that aspect of Unknown Armies.

I pondered keeping more information hidden, but in the end their lukewarm reaction to narrative HP wasn't very positive. We discussed it later and they felt a lot of the rewards from DnD were "in the numbers." Essentially, they thought that hiding the crunchy bits was over simplifying things as far as the players fun was concerned. As one specific player put it, "I like fiddling with my characters numbers in DnD. I like knowing where all my feats, skills, and attribute points go and how they effect everything else on my character sheet."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Leveling up would be done by the dm and based on how a player had their character act. No more taking surprise levels in classes out of the blue to just fit a prestige class. You want your fighter to gain levels as a cleric then you role-play him asking question of clerics, buying a holy book and holy symbol, etc. When the dm says you have leveled you let him know if this is a deep interest of your character or just him being worldly. Deep interest can get you a level of cleric, being worldly may mean your character takes some levels in knowledge religion.

As a player, I'd have a serious problem with this.

It is difficult enough already for a person to tranlate their PC concept from their mind- including archetypes, system mastery and things as simple and perverse as personal preferences- to a character sheet- it is even more difficult when you add another person's mind as another filter twixt concept and character.

To put it in game mechanics terms, when the DM thinks the fighter is becoming is a cleric, the player could be thinking Cleric...or Paladin, Favored Soul, Druid, Shaman, Sohei, Divine Mind, Ardent, Soulborn, Soulknife with the Illumine Soul PrCl, etc.

Ditto goes for what feats I'd want my PC to take; which spells to learn. What I want may not be what you THINK I want.

While I have no problem with a DM strictly proscribing which classes, PrCls and Feats are available, he has no business telling me which ones I actually take for my PC. While the DM is the final arbiter of what spells my PCs have an opportunity to learn today, he has no right to dictate that my PC actually learned those spells, since he may instead wish to wait to see if he finds something else.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I As one specific player put it, "I like fiddling with my characters numbers in DnD. I like knowing where all my feats, skills, and attribute points go and how they effect everything else on my character sheet."

Yeah, this would take a certain type of player for it to work. Someone who is there for the story, the challenge, and surviving/winning. Players who constantly tinker and min/max their character will of course be completely opposed to the system.

The funny thing is that their arguements will generally fall flat. Its one thing to like to tinker with your character. But I would expect that lots of arguments to be that their character is not designed as well as it could be.

To me this doesnt matter in the least. As the DM its my job to make sure your challenged. To assume every character must be min/maxxed optiminized to survive is just silly. All it really does is create inequalities in the group as the min/maxed half orc barbarian deals more death than anyone else in every battle and makes other members of the party feel pointless.

Also, to me at least, I think doing things this way would reward the person who creates a character concept that isnt focused around being a combat monkey because the game will be more enjoyable and gripping outside of combat.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

As a player, I'd have a serious problem with this.

It is difficult enough already for a person to tranlate their PC concept from their mind- including archetypes, system mastery and things as simple and perverse as personal preferences- to a character sheet- it is even more difficult when you add another person's mind as another filter twixt concept and character.

To put it in game mechanics terms, when the DM thinks the fighter is becoming is a cleric, the player could be thinking Cleric...or Paladin, Favored Soul, Druid, Shaman, Sohei, Divine Mind, Ardent, Soulborn, Soulknife with the Illumine Soul PrCl, etc.

Ditto goes for what feats I'd want my PC to take; which spells to learn. What I want may not be what you THINK I want.

While I have no problem with a DM strictly proscribing which classes, PrCls and Feats are available, he has no business telling me which ones I actually take for my PC. While the DM is the final arbiter of what spells my PCs have an opportunity to learn today, he has no right to dictate that my PC actually learned those spells, since he may instead wish to wait to see if he finds something else.

Its not about telling you what classes you can take. Its about making you actual play your character as you envision it compared to just taking out of the blue class choices. The interaction between DM and player would be determined by them together.

What I want to try and create, and I am not sure how well it will happen, is a system like some video games like Oblivian use. Skills are increased by your direct use of them. To me this would work better than run around killing everything in sight with your fighter until you level and then putting two skill points into diplomacy.

Huh? You learned to be diplomatic while burying your axe in the head of anything that had a head how? when?

Or the player who plays levels 1 to 6 basically on foot every second because its a mixed urban/dungeon setting yet puts points into Riding at every level because they know they want to take some PrC at level 10.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

This sounds close to being the antithesis of a "game" to me.

If I want a freeform storybuilding experience, I'll play a freeform storybuilding game.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

The two areas I am not sure how to handle is feats and minis/maps.

These two things really board game the system. One idea I have is using minis but not a lined map. Its of the squared off board it would be a map with terrain drawn on it. Movement would be done using a ruler but with definite rules. Things that I hate and want to avoid is counting squares to perfectly drop fireballs so they fry monster yet dont touch the three party members in melee with monster. Also ranged characters that count squares so they can run up to the perfect distance to fire while knowing they are safe from the monster getting close enough to them to attack.

Feats I am really unsure on. This might just be a suspension thing where player choses feats when they level and knows them by name. Otherwise you have to do confusing stuff like describe feats and describe how you attack, blahh blahh blahh, dont think that will work.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

This sounds close to being the antithesis of a "game" to me.

If I want a freeform storybuilding experience, I'll play a freeform storybuilding game.

I will say AGAIN. The point of this thread was to ask who has run or played in such games and how did they turn out.

I have also made some comments on a few of the ideas I have for running such a game.

If you have not played in such a game then comments about how you dont think you would like it are pretty pointless. I want to avoid this dragging away from the point I have in starting this thread.

 

[Crothian]

Yes, I've done this but not in D&D. We did this in a some White Wolf games and since they are point buy systems it works out a lot better. Games were characters start out more complete and gain less power through advancement I think work better in this type of game.

 

[Sunseeker]

I will say AGAIN. The point of this thread was to ask who has run or played in such games and how did they turn out.

I have also made some comments on a few of the ideas I have for running such a game.

If you have not played in such a game then comments about how you dont think you would like it are pretty pointless. I want to avoid this dragging away from the point I have in starting this thread.

Woah there, take a chill pill dude.

Have you done this yourself? Your posts indicate that you haven't. So this idea either came to you, or was presented to you by someone. And you're thinking of presenting it to others. Others who probably haven't played this way.

So getting opinions on this style of play from people who haven't played this way is a good way to gauge how the people you're going to present this to will react. If this is more of a theoretical exercise, then who has or has not done this is largely irrelevent.