Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 2421199" data-attributes="member: 10201">Huh? You can't pick a template, allocate 7 points (well, dice) to skills (of which there are about 25, all printed on the character sheet already), and pick a name and description in under 15min? And yet you can make all the decisions for a D20 System character (such as generating and arranging stats, picking feats, calculating and allocating skill points) in 5 minutes? That depends on the style of the game, as well as on how detailed its rules are. In plenty of rules-lite games, you *can* determine those things yourself--because the rules are specifically structured to put those decisions in the players hands, rather than the hands of the GM or the rules.That's not proof, that's anecdote. My players have given up trying most of those things, since we switched to D20 System (from lighter games), and, before they apparently gave up, they and i were regularly finding ourselves needing to improvise rules for doing something that the rules [Arcana Unearthed + D20SRD, that is] don't cover. It's been a few weeks since a really big combat--i'll be sure and pay attention to see if they try fancy maneuvers or just hack. And, honestly, i suspect it's partly because i was inconsistent--an inconsistency brought on by the complexity of D20 System, and the fact that it covers some things in detail and others not at all.----Oh, your comment about GMs having different styles reminds me of something i'm planning on trying out on the group next session. The Burning Wheel has "beliefs" which, in addition to defining the character, are explicitly a tool to define gameplay. That is, the GM can look at a character's beliefs, and know that that's what the player wants out of the game--why play a character questing for revenge, if you don't want to play about questing for revenge?See, complex rules are a kludgy way to solve the problem of miscommunicated playstyles. If the problem is that the GM and players have different assumptions about how the game should go, isn't a better solution for the GM and players to talk about that and come to a shared understading of how the game should go? Surely that's better than relying on a complex ruleset that may define a playstyle that none of the players specifically wants. Yes, detailed rules will prevent arguments between the players, but unless they happen to define the playstyle you want, what's the point? Frex, let's say you *all* want a swashbuckling, free-flowing, bigger-than-life game, but have disagreements about exactly what that means--one person thinks "Errol Flynn", another thinks "Jet Li", and a third thinks "The Matrix". Obviously you're gonna have conflicts--especially if the Errol Flynn guy is applying those standards as GM, while the Jet Li and Matrix players are trying to do stunts that match what they think the genre should be. But using baseline D&D3E, while providing a common baseline, will provide a baseline that doesn't match *any* of the players' desires. Instead, you could stick with the relatively light system, and just add one specific rule, defining the standards of reality and heroicism.</blockquote>

Verification