Cevalic said:
I see some of your points, but I'm confused on a couple:
I'll try and explain a bit more.
Cevalic said:
1. Excessive complexity of generating characters, NPCS: Ive never thought its been hard to generate a NPC as a DM. I dont go through and pick out every skill, feat, ect. Just the basics as far as HP, AC, BA. Major villians are of course fleshed out, but the minor thug needs no more than a little bit of time to put it together. It seems unnessecary to go through and make full stats on someone the PCs are going to roll through in just moments.
Fair enough. But skills and feats can effect AC, hp, BAB, so what you're saying is that many NPCs are partial or approximated. A better ruleset would, in my view, actually address this issue of generic NPCs, rather than leave it to GM handwaving. 3E doesn't do this, and indeed the rules for NPC classes in the DMG combined with the rules for monster building in Savage Species and the MMs imply that all NPCs look exactly like PCs. And the plethora of errors in WoTC stat blocks shows that these rules are too hard.
Here is a different way of coming at the issue: if it doesn't matter that your NPCs are only partial or approximated, why are the rules going into the level of detail that they do?
D20 modern (and I gather SW Saga) tackle this issue with rules for non-heroic NPCs, which I gather are much easier to build than heroic NPCs and PCs.
1st-ed also tackled this issue, by having distinct rules for 0-level commoners, 0-level soldiers, mercenary captains, sea captains, sages etc. Although the rules presentation was very patchy, what was given was (in effect) a set of rules for constructing generic NPCs.
Cevalic said:
2. I dont think grapple is so much as overly complex as overly long. One mechanic should have been enough. I also dont understand what you mean about the overlapping of spell resistance and saving throws. I think they should be seperate like the way they are.
Maybe in some conceptual sense it's good that SR and saves are separate - I'm not concerned with that question. But what it means in practical terms is that any attempt at resolving a spell typically involves two rolls: one for SR, one for save. If it is a ray or touch spell, there's also the attack roll. This is too many rolls. It makes the game needlessly complex. Rolemaster -itself hardly the smoothest ruleset out there - resolved this issue 25 years ago.
Cevalic said:
3. Advancement between treasure and XP and metagame: I dont see what you mean.
D&D has two sorts of rewards: XPs (which make PCs better by giving them intrinsic abilities) and treasure (which makes PCs better by giving them magic items). The latter is clearly an in-game resource also. The former, however, is awarded according to a metagame logic (ie players who succeed at the premise of the game, by overcoming challenges, earn XPs for their PCs) and it is difficult to assign it an in-game interpretation. Nevertheless, aspects of the magic rules treat XPs as an in-game resource. But what is the nature of this resource? I have read some suggestions that XPs measure "spiritual power". But in that case, why is the only way to build up "spiritual power" by overcoming challenges? It makes no in-game sense. Thus the incoherence. A coherent ruleset would treat XP purely as a metagame device.
Cevalic said:
4. Coherance between high fantasy and gritty fantasy: I've never played RM, so once again I'm not sure what you mean here. My campaigns are normally low magic and gritty. I'll wait for your explanation, because I'm probably just confused.
A 10th level fighter can trivially beat a lion in hand to hand combat (far more hit points, better BAB, comparable ST, comparable damage per hit). In real-world terms this is a near-impossible feat. Thus, the combat aspects of D&D are aimed at the highest of high-fantasy.
On the other hand, a 10th level fighter can probably not sneak past the typical town guard to save his life (few skill points, probably none in Move Silently or Hide). This is ultra-gritty.
This generates a tension within the gameworld - is it a world of over-the-top heroics, as the combat portions of the rules suggest, or a game of gritty survival, as the skill system suggests? I mentioned RM and RQ because they resolve this dilemma in favour of grittiness, having skill systems not unlike that of D&D but combat systems that are far from ultra-heroic.
Cevalic said:
5. The use of Raise Dead vs Fate Points. Again, this seems like a house issue. Some people like Raise dead, others dont. My games dont use raise dead, and the players know not to do anything too stupid (attack a well protected king, ect) or they risk losing their characters for good. I do like the idea of Fate Points though. Although not too many. Too many would let them get away with more, and take away from the story I think (such as Drizzt. How many times can you escape death? Over and over?). I like gritty, and fate points might work having just a few, but not too many.
Dropping Raise Dead is a house rule. Played from the book, Raise Dead (and its kin) are in the game. In effect, they constitute ways of spending significant amounts of resources (given the material component costs, and the level-loss in many cases) in order to avoid character death. But in the process the action (at least for the player of the dead PC) grinds to a halt. Fate Points provide an alternative resource, purely metagame, for achieving a similar outcome without the interruption to action.
Of course, the same objection might be made about healing, or any other aspect of character ill-health or resource depletion. The difference with Raise Dead is that (i) character death precludes playing the game in a way that character injury or poverty often does not, and (ii) frequent (and somewhat mundane) return of characters from death is not a typicaly fantasy trope.
Cevalic said:
6. I've never liked alignment, and have always just loosely used it. Most people I've ever come across have done the same. I hope they dont work something in about PCs having to be good, as most campaigns Ive run or played in are usually neutral or evil.
As I said, most published campaigns and modules assume that PCs are good - so in that respect, it sounds like the games you play in deviate from the (published) norm.
The difficulty with downplaying alignment at present is that quite a few parts of the mechanics - eg spell effects, weapon effects, smite abilities etc - refer to it. Sorting out how alignment is to be understood and applied would improve the game.
Cevalic said:
Sorry about being confused on a couple things. Number 4 just had me scratching my head a little.
I hope I've made things clearer.