Originally posted by Ranger REG but then there are those who are so glad to have moved away from the "bucket o dice" system (like me) that there is an option that is more enjoyable and playable (by my own preference and style)
Well, of course there is that choice.
Although, I will agree, that the worst thing about the WEG SW and d6 was the bucket of dice.
my fave will always be Star Trek
I despise it actually... even if I have been watching Enterprise as of late.
So you know there will be differences in our thought patterns. Then again, I always preferred the writtings of Jerry Pournelly and David Drake. Hard-core military sci-fi.
As for class-level system being a lead weight, I don't feel it. Granted there were restriction in past products (I do acknowledge the ridiculous demihuman multiclass combination allowed list and the even more ridiculous dual-class for human rules). Removing the restriction, even moreso for modern and sci-fi genre games makes it easier to diversify your character.
D&D has tons of it. Can you be a rogue thats not a thief? Sure, but instead of being able to get rid of abilities that don't fit your character, you are stuck with them. Not so in a more flexible system. And no, while the Giskard's Zeroth law, oops wait... wrong genre
... the Zeroth law is nice; its a lazy solution to the problem.
Besides, if class-level is the worst problem, Palladium Book would have shut down a long time ago, and FASA would be selling their MechWarrior: Third Edition RPG off the shelf.
I disagree. Palladium is Palladium, think I've played one game of Rifts; didn't care for the world concept. And MW, well, right or wrong that was designed with the genre and the boardgame in mind. Would hate to see a d20 version of MW.
You have to make SRD into d20; it is the foundation to build a d20- compatible product.
The SRD is
NOT a d20 licensed product, its an OGL product. You don't have to use the d20 license at all to produce a SRD based product. All that you need the d20 license for is to put the d20 logo on your product, which more tightly affiliates your product with d20 and D&D.
It's a good thing that the SRD is more of a designer's toolkit and that 100% of that content is Open Game Content, which means you have the option of reprinting (or not) or modifying the game content that is more suitable for your game. If you don't like Alchemy skill in your sci-fi RPG, don't use it. Or modify the Alchemy skill into something more modern like Chemistry skill.
SRD is literally VB as compared to C/C++ before .NET came around and they all compile into one bytecode that is run within the same virtual machine.
However, when you use as an example the Alchemy skill, you are automatically talking about "fluff". I am talking about the very base mechanics in the SRD, stripped of all fluff, i.e. the feats, skills, weapons, armor, spells, monsters, etc. Rather how the various mechanics suchs levels, classes, hitpoints, attacks, armor class, etc. interact with each other.
For such well-established, long-running products like CoC or Deadland, making the game available in other rules system such as GURP allow that publisher to attract more gamers that are more familiar with that set of rules. More gamers means people will buy your wares, increasing your business revenue.
Yes, by giving the gamers a choice that allows them to choose a mechanic that best fits their gaming styles and preference.
BTW, I have yet to see Chaosium start putting up supplement for CoC d20. They have made promise but no result on the shelves. Wizards can't do anything about it since they agreed to the core rulebook deal.
If I was Chaosium, I wouldn't either. Not until I saw sells of the d20 CoC making gains on the normal CoC sells. However, if producing CoC supplements, I'd go to the trouble of including OGL'd d20 information so that CoC d20 players don't feel left out.
Actually, I have heard the debate of whether the OGL itself can be as good as other open source license like the GPL. It ranges from how does one "clearly indicate what is OGL in the program's codes" (from a "reasonable person" standard, whether it be a programmer or an average user of said program) to allowing OGL to work with GPL or other open source code license.
Well, not everyone likes the GPL license either..
But as someone else pointed out, OGL is not compatible with even other open-source licenses. GPL is probably a bad one as an example, but while I forget the name of it, there is another GNU based license that concerns open-source documentation.
Why do you always see "classes" as such a bane? I mean, if you decided on a military career, then one should take the path that would make him a better soldier. If you want to learn to knit then that's your choice of an outside hobby but it will prove to be an obstacle to becoming better soldier, if you are distracted from your goal.
A hobby is just that, a hobby. Anyone, by virtue of it being a hobbby, can do it if its something they are interested in. Your profession has absolutely no bearing on how good or how talented you may be at a hobby. Now, you may spend less time at your hobby than someone with a different profession, but if you have the talent it matters not. Nor is it an obstacle to becoming a better solider, in this example. Different people excel at different things. One solider may just be more adept at the skills necessary for a solider and therefore spends less time at it. Another solider may need to spend a lot more time prefecting the "art" of being a solider. Whereas, a third solider spends more times with his hobbies than either of the first two, and while he may be a good solider, hasn't spent his time or effort as wisely. With the class system, as represented in the SRD, you are limited to basically one of those three choices, choice one. With your DM, and rule Zero, you *may* be able to get around those... but
NOT by any set rules laid down by the game system; rather by judgement calls that will vary from DM to DM.
Sorry, the "all-or-nothing" excuse may apply toward the predecessors of the d20 system (i.e, AD&D strict multiclassing/dual-classing rules) but not so with the current incarnation.
No, the "all-or-nothing" argument applies to the current version of D&D just as it did in the original D&D, 1st Ed and 2nd Ed. I've played them all, so have a good ground to based my opinion on. With 3rd Edition, there are more built in rules that integrate together [skills being one; they integrate better than they did when first presented in the Wilderness Guide for 1st Ed. and of course in 2nd Ed] in a more seamless matter. However, without applying the all encompassing Zeroth rule, you are still fairly limited in differences between one character and the next in ability.
And frankly, the limitations of the 3rd Ed. system are quite evident in the discussion of base classes such as the Ranger where folks argue with other folks about them creating a new Ranger that has some abilities of the Druid and no spell casting, etc. Why would people do that? To get around the limitations, even with multi-classing, that are present in the base D&D system [which is defined currently in the SRD and forms the basis of the d20 system]. In essense they are arguing about the Zeroth rule and whose interpretation of it is correct. A more flexible system, say GURPS or Hero [although am not a huge fan of either persay] built the system and mechanics to basically handle situations such as these.
For d20 Modern you are encouraged to multiclass from an ability-based Hero Class (e.g., Strong Hero that focus on character's Strength) to an Advanced Class (Strong Hero becomes a Soldier) to a Prestige Class (Strong Soldier become an Army Ranger).
At this point, d20 Modern is hardly out and its not part of the SRD or OGS, so is really irrelavent to the conversation. But nonetheless, they have tried to open up the d20 Modern so that the class system is not as stifling to the modern personaes which may not fit as nicely into archtypes. In effect they are saying, ok... we don't see that the SRD and d20 worked well in this setting, so we're going to change it so it hopefully works better.
That being said, I haven't had the opportunity yet to sit down
and read through it, though probably will. Nonetheless, I must ask... why bother with classes at all in this case? [note, I don't mention levels] Why not, rather than force players to define their characters as a collection of skills and feats that the player feels best represents the characters abilities and experience at any given level? This is a more fine-grained approach than the coarse-grained "bucket" system approach of the class system. Classes can still be useful, especially in modern and sci-fi systems as they can represent packages of skills that are learned through some type of educational scheme, not necessarily through use and experience. In essesnse, more of a Prestige Class effect.
)
