Looking for...

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would assume that is a sword that can either use frost, lightning or fire?

Not quite, I mean a sword that does all 3 at the same time.

I can't understand why someone wants to have a discussion about a system they don't want to use anyway. I don't want to play DSA or Shadowrun again, but I surely don't run around and tell other people that the system is bad.

In short: Because I absolutely refuse to turn down a chance to participate in RPG gaming solely upon what system is being run.

What games I play depend upon what group I'm in. I played a LOT of GURPS for about 4 years, and I HATE GURPS with a passion (though I understand the new edition addresses some of my deepest held problems with the game)- I did so because the group of gamers I was hanging with played a lot of GURPS. We played other things, but at least 40% of what we played was that game.

4Ed is the forseeable future of the game, and I'm trying to get a solid grasp on what I do and don't like about it because I don't know who, if any, of my fellow gamers might decide to run a 4Ed game.

My expressions of my dislike are in response to those who are telling me that "sure you can do X," even if you really can't. To me, in the context of 30 years of RPG (not just D&D) design, 4Ed looks like a step back as a set of rules.

Sure, some things have been added- don't get me started- but as a whole, it looks like decades of design theory have been ignored.

Perhaps they had not enough time to create player compatible final rules for that? Perhaps they choose not to do so?

Given that running monster PCs has been relatively popular- enough to warrant sourcebooks in 2 previous editions and several 3rd party products- using the timetable they themselves established as an excuse is simply not valid.

Especially since they decided they were moving a PC race out of the PHB into the MM- a decision that has been roundly criticized by a vocal (admittedly) minority. They knew for a fact people would want to play Gnomes on Day 1 of 4Ed.

They could easily have opted to keep the Gnome in the PHB- what's 2 more pages (especially when pages devoted to an additional & unneccessary elf/fey race could have easily been handled as a single entry)?- and done without the conversion rules until they felt the need to release the 4Ed version of Savage Species at some later date.

Of course there are still problems with unarmed attacks in general, but these will be fixed in a further rules expansion.

Sort of my point- again, a choice was made to jettison something I consider fairly basic to an RPG- decent or at least useful unarmed combat rules- in favor of making us buy a later supplement/ruleset.

I don't want to sound nitpick-y, but guidelines are not rules. You can use them, but you are not bound by them.

You can't even use them if you're not given them to use.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Danny - you've got 30 years of roleplaying experience. That would suggest to me that you've got 30 years of seeing that there is no 100% comprehensive roleplaying game that does everything the way you want it to be done, and there has never been. I would hope it would also give you some insight to why that is the case, and why that's not necessarily a bad thing.

What roleplaying system DO you like?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny - you've got 30 years of roleplaying experience. <snip>

I own about 60+ different systems, currently, down from a peak of over 100. Each had merits, each had flaws.

Clearly, no system is perfect- none can be.

But it seems to me at least that 4Ed veered off of a really good path of RPG development in many aspects, and has gone back in time in several ways.

And some stuff is simply missing- I pointed out elsewhere that rules (or even guidelines) for designing unique magic items are simply missing.

Its as if 20+ years of gaming design simply didn't happen.

My enjoyment of those various games was determined more by whom I played with than by the systems, but the systems definitely had an impact. Heck, some were fun only because of the fluff- the mechanics were awful- RIFTS, I'm looking at you!

What roleplaying system DO you like?

Lots.

I started with AD&D, and soon discovered Traveller. Still love 'em, as well as several of the revisions in both. So far, 3.X is my favorite incarnation of D&D.

I like 3.X in several of its incarnations- D&D, AU/AE, Midnight- and even the Modern tropes- Urban Arcana/Dark*Matter, Spycraft, and especially Mutants & Masterminds.

On somewhat the other end of things, I loved Steve Jackson's Melee/Wizard/In the Labyrinth. Its one of the simplest RPGs ever made- only 3 stats. Even with its skill system, you could make a PC in 5 minutes. (Its rules eventually inspired Steve Jackson to make GURPS- a game I strongly dislike.)

Paranoia's system always fit what it was modeling pretty well. Even the current ruleset works, though I haven't tried the optional "dark future" rules.

I enjoyed Chaosium's RuneQuest mechanics, mainly in the tweeked incarnations used for the games Stormbringer, Hawkmoon, and Corum.

WoD was excellent at bolstering roleplay, but didn't do so good on a pure mechanical level.

But my favorite game of all time is HERO- I've liked each incarnation except FUZION.

Again, though, not a one is perfect.

For all of its merits, Traveller could have used a rules merger with SPI's Universe (another excellent sci-fi game)- there were certain things it handled MUCH better than Traveller, like Robots and planetary design.

3.X has some odd conventions that it held over from previous editions of the game, like the uniformity of PC movement rates. Many RPGs link movement rates to things like Dex or have them as totally distinct stats. In D&D, the only permanent speed variables are race (specifically, PC size) and class.

My personal fave, HERO, has as its main flaws complexity and ease of abuse...which is due in no small part to its complexity. A good player can squeeze a lot of juice out of his build points- much more than an inexperienced player.

 

[frankthedm]

Given that running monster PCs has been relatively popular- enough to warrant sourcebooks in 2 previous editions and several 3rd party products- using the timetable they themselves established as an excuse is simply not valid.

Monster PCs are a popular concept, but not at the core of the D&D experience. Excluding in depth material was a favor to DMs who want the idea to stay maginalized, Besides, it will sell just fine as a stand alone suplement.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Besides, it will sell just fine as a stand alone suplement.

Right, and I have no problem with that...but moving a PC race to the MM and suggesting that players use some substandard Monster PC rules while asserting that that incarnation of the race is perfectly playable in the interim is quite uncool.