Dark Sun: What System would you use?

[Wik]

Wik,
Regarding GURPS being "buildy".

The problem you described is a problem with the player and, possibly, the GM.

It is a player problem if they taking disadvantages they know that the character will not suffer from. They are gaming the system.

It is a GM problem if the GM allows characters with disadvantages that will not come up or the character will not suffer from.

Point/build systems require mature players. They also require a GM willing to tell a player, "No!" when they try to game the system, break it (intentionally or not) or ignore the campaign guidelines). Some players are not mature enough and some GMs don't want to do their job.

"Min/Maxing and Munchkinism aren't problems with the game; they're problems with the player."
Roleplaying Game Manifesto
Guardians of Order

I wouldn't call them problem players, at all. Or even immature or something like that. These are players who see four or five abilities that give +1 to X, and see no reason why they shouldn't take all five. And then they see a disadvantage that gives a -3 to Y, and say "well, my character isn't good at Y, so I'll take that". It's not that they're gaming the system - it's that they build their characters towards specific goals.

The problem arises when my other players look at the system, and go "well, I want my character to do X" and pick one of those five abilities. And find themselves significantly weaker than their ally... except in the rare situation where they are required to function in Y's role.

The big problem with "buildy" systems is that, inevitably, each player will approach the system with different perceptions of what is okay and what is "too much". And the problem is, that will lead to PCs with varying levels of strength and effectiveness.

Basically, I want to keep the variables down. This has been my beef with 3e, and now 4e. Too many variables lead to too many variables in party strength. At least, in my opinion.

And for what it's worth, I have no problem saying "no" to my players. But I don't play the game to say "no" to people all the time. I'd much rather have a system that works with me, so I can say "yes" as often as I possibly can.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hey Wik, no love or recognition for my RuneQuest /BRP suggestion? < fx: weeps in corner >

 

[Neonchameleon]

"Min/Maxing and Munchkinism aren't problems with the game; they're problems with the player."
Roleplaying Game Manifesto
Guardians of Order

Indeed they are. Over a normal D&D campaign, if you aren't trying to min/max your gear at the very least you are not roleplaying.

This is because over a roleplaying campaign, you are fighting for your life and the lives of those you care about. Possibly even the fate of the world. If you're therefore not trying to get the equipment most likely to help you do this it's because you don't care about what you are doing. You don't care if you live or die. And yes, you can roleplay someone who doesn't care if they die or the world gets destroyed. That is your right. But just because you are doing so doesn't give you the right to look down on people who are roleplaying people with self preservation instincts and loved ones they care about. And who prepare for challenges as if they want to win.

 

[Wik]

Hey Wik, no love or recognition for my RuneQuest /BRP suggestion? < fx: weeps in corner >

Ha ha, it got lost in the shuffle. I've never actually played Runequest. For some reason, percentile based systems scare me.

 

[Argyle King]

I wouldn't call them problem players, at all. Or even immature or something like that. These are players who see four or five abilities that give +1 to X, and see no reason why they shouldn't take all five. And then they see a disadvantage that gives a -3 to Y, and say "well, my character isn't good at Y, so I'll take that". It's not that they're gaming the system - it's that they build their characters towards specific goals.

The problem arises when my other players look at the system, and go "well, I want my character to do X" and pick one of those five abilities. And find themselves significantly weaker than their ally... except in the rare situation where they are required to function in Y's role.

The big problem with "buildy" systems is that, inevitably, each player will approach the system with different perceptions of what is okay and what is "too much". And the problem is, that will lead to PCs with varying levels of strength and effectiveness.

Basically, I want to keep the variables down. This has been my beef with 3e, and now 4e. Too many variables lead to too many variables in party strength. At least, in my opinion.

And for what it's worth, I have no problem saying "no" to my players. But I don't play the game to say "no" to people all the time. I'd much rather have a system that works with me, so I can say "yes" as often as I possibly can.

I can understand that point of view. Oddly, that's why I started to like GURPS though. Because it is so open ended -what I mean by that is that there's no one way to accomplish goals (i.e. combat) which is presented (or rules supported) more than others- I can run a game in which both types of players can contribute meaningfully. The guy who wants to be the one trick pony will be awesome at that one thing and many related things, but there will also be times when he's outmatched outside of his element. Likewise, the guy who is more of a generalist might feel underpowered in that one area, but he's going to be given a chance to shine because the system allows for all of those abilities to be useful (dependent upon the style of game the GM is running -obviously; in a game which focuses more on one type of ability or one style of task resolution, that ability/method becomes more valuable.)

Still, I'm not trying to beat you over the head with my suggestion. Pick what you feel is best. Even if you go with something else though, I think it might benefit you to at least take a glance at the free GURPS Lite. While it may not be your cup of tea, it at least gives you an idea of how other games out there might handle things differently than D&D does.

 

[blargney the second]

For what it's worth, at the moment this thread has me leaning towards E6.
-blarg

 

[Wik]

For what it's worth, at the moment this thread has me leaning towards E6.
-blarg

I'd love to hear your reasoning why on this one. Considering how, y'know, your opinion on this is a bit more important than most of the others, what with you being a player and all.

And bear in mind if we do an E6 game, it'd be mostly "Core only", without a bunch of the splats.

 

[pawsplay]

I wouldn't call them problem players, at all. Or even immature or something like that. These are players who see four or five abilities that give +1 to X, and see no reason why they shouldn't take all five. And then they see a disadvantage that gives a -3 to Y, and say "well, my character isn't good at Y, so I'll take that". It's not that they're gaming the system - it's that they build their characters towards specific goals.

The problem arises when my other players look at the system, and go "well, I want my character to do X" and pick one of those five abilities. And find themselves significantly weaker than their ally... except in the rare situation where they are required to function in Y's role.

The big problem with "buildy" systems is that, inevitably, each player will approach the system with different perceptions of what is okay and what is "too much". And the problem is, that will lead to PCs with varying levels of strength and effectiveness.

I'm not going to address the situation with your players, because I don't them. All I'm going to say is based on what you are describing here as "buildy," GURPS is not buildy. I can hear some of what you are saying reflected in my experiences with Vampire, to some extent with D&D 3e, definitely with 4e, also with Savage Worlds. GURPS? Not really. There are no "five abilities" that "do X." There is one Broadsword skill, and then all the other things related to combat like Dodge, Combat Reflexes, Wrestling, Will etc. You literally cannot do it all, nor would you want to.

In general, if a character spends all their points on (however defined) task X, and loads up disadvantages in area Y, they don't end up powerful, they end, up, well, specialized. Which in some scenarios is fine. In others, that's a synonym for "dead."

If you want to get to the nitty-gritty of Conan type adventurers, and throw in some weird powers, GURPS is pretty much the game I would recommend. It does that really well. With or without players of a "buildy" temperament.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

Mongoose Runequest II will fulfill your needs...deadly combat, no real minis use, already fantasy, hit location combat that actually makes sense, different magic systems for different kinds of magic, versatile. I like it a lot.

It's a system that I am going to try to convert Secret of Zi'Ran to.

 

[blargney the second]

I'd love to hear your reasoning why on this one. And bear in mind if we do an E6 game, it'd be mostly "Core only", without a bunch of the splats.

Here are the first few reasons that come to mind:
1) The basic d20 engine is a freaking awesome workhorse.
2) The psionics module from 3.5 is the best one ever made for D&D.
3) If we stick to only d20SRD.org material, everybody has easy access to it. It is basically just core + psionics.
4) v3.5 gets hard to DM at levels 10+. E6 avoids that completely.
5) All the players know the system, so we can just jump straight into playing.
6) You would be able to use monsters as-is from 2e, 3e, and 4e. (I've done all 3 in a 3e game).
7) There's a significant amount of class parity in E6. Everybody comes into their own, but nobody totally dominates.
8) Crappy weapons are easy to model. (anti-masterwork)
9) Just think of all the fun toys you've never played with in Unearthed Arcana!
10) If you want to avoid builds, it's easy to pop in a system for random stat generation. Personally, I'd love to use the one from Dragon magazine that basically uses tarot cards to read your character's fate (linky). It combines the best features of parity and randomness.

I'll stop now, but I could go on.
-blarg