Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="der_kluge" data-source="post: 1979456" data-attributes="member: 945">And I think that's the fundamental problem with the system. Which more or less gets me full-circle back to the topic at hand - that because d20 has so much fluff and &quot;D&amp;D specific&quot; stuff in it (for lack of a better term) that it's not a simple, flexible ruleset that it needs to be.&nbsp; There are a lot of base assumptions built into the game that make it hard to be flexible. Like, fighters at high levels having 200+ hit points. Characters at high levels dealing out uber amounts of damage, raising of dead, healing of all hit points, teleporting, scrying, and all the other stuff that goes into the game, that make it what it is.&nbsp; No, it's not intended to be GURPS, and it clearly is not.&nbsp; But, as a ruleset which is supposed to be portable, I don't think it works very well for everything.Yes, the number of possible variations is very large, but quite finite as compared with some like GURPS. In D&amp;D, there are just so many ways I can build a cleric, as opposed to the number of ways I could build a &quot;cleric-like&quot; character in GURPS. Far more choices for variety. So, what you get in D&amp;D is more variations on the same thing. &quot;Look, here are more kinds of clerics&quot;.&nbsp; That's why there is so much crunch in all the expansion products, because the base choices are just so few.&nbsp; I can't count the number of times people post on here looking for a new Prestige class, or some specific class or race, or whatever, to suit their idea of what they want to create.&nbsp; It's the major flaw with the class-based system, I think, but that's a discussion for another dayI think it's realistic to believe that you can create a flexible system that will be &quot;good enough&quot; or at least flexible enough and open-ended enough to allow the GM and his players to adjust as they see fit.&nbsp; If I wanted to play a Druid who turns undead because there are shadows that live in the woods, I can't do it at 1st level. That's a perfectly viable character concept that the rules just don't support, at least not the core rules. If wanted a thief who knew a few handy cantrips and spells at 1st level, again I can't do it, without making a bard, and then you get that whole stupid musical ability crap, which you may not want anything to do with.D&amp;D has tied the &quot;fluff&quot; in with the rules to create &quot;classes&quot;.&nbsp; &quot;This is a thief, this is what it does, any deviation from this is simply not possible aside from additions you make to this base class&quot;.&nbsp; &quot;This is a sleep spell. I do not care if you are 20th level, it sucks today, just as much as it sucked 15 levels ago. There are no rules to make the spell any better, not matter how much you want to try.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="der_kluge, post: 1979456, member: 945"] And I think that's the fundamental problem with the system. Which more or less gets me full-circle back to the topic at hand - that because d20 has so much fluff and "D&D specific" stuff in it (for lack of a better term) that it's not a simple, flexible ruleset that it needs to be. There are a lot of base assumptions built into the game that make it hard to be flexible. Like, fighters at high levels having 200+ hit points. Characters at high levels dealing out uber amounts of damage, raising of dead, healing of all hit points, teleporting, scrying, and all the other stuff that goes into the game, that make it what it is. No, it's not intended to be GURPS, and it clearly is not. But, as a ruleset which is supposed to be portable, I don't think it works very well for everything. Yes, the number of possible variations is very large, but quite finite as compared with some like GURPS. In D&D, there are just so many ways I can build a cleric, as opposed to the number of ways I could build a "cleric-like" character in GURPS. Far more choices for variety. So, what you get in D&D is more variations on the same thing. "Look, here are more kinds of clerics". That's why there is so much crunch in all the expansion products, because the base choices are just so few. I can't count the number of times people post on here looking for a new Prestige class, or some specific class or race, or whatever, to suit their idea of what they want to create. It's the major flaw with the class-based system, I think, but that's a discussion for another day I think it's realistic to believe that you can create a flexible system that will be "good enough" or at least flexible enough and open-ended enough to allow the GM and his players to adjust as they see fit. If I wanted to play a Druid who turns undead because there are shadows that live in the woods, I can't do it at 1st level. That's a perfectly viable character concept that the rules just don't support, at least not the core rules. If wanted a thief who knew a few handy cantrips and spells at 1st level, again I can't do it, without making a bard, and then you get that whole stupid musical ability crap, which you may not want anything to do with. D&D has tied the "fluff" in with the rules to create "classes". "This is a thief, this is what it does, any deviation from this is simply not possible aside from additions you make to this base class". "This is a [i]sleep[/i] spell. I do not care if you are 20th level, it sucks today, just as much as it sucked 15 levels ago. There are no rules to make the spell any better, not matter how much you want to try." [/QUOTE]

Verification