Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mythmere1" data-source="post: 3686885" data-attributes="member: 26563">I agree with the gang that says D&amp;D has to be mashed a bit to fit it into a real sword and sorcery style, although 1e and 3e both presuppose a fairly sword &amp; sorcery world -- it's just that then the rules establish a higher fantasy ... um, interface, I guess is the best word I can come up with.&nbsp; Combat in D&amp;D doesn't get lethal until it hits a certain point; great for wargaming and high fantasy, not quite the S&amp;S feel.&nbsp; You can add a critical hit table to get closer, but D&amp;D is intrinsically higher fantasy than the original pulp stories.Since that stems from a hit-point method of damage, I'd say that anything based on the SRD (which doesn't use a different damage mechanism) is going to have the same &quot;higher fantasy&quot; flaw.That's combat - the other side of the equation is magic.&nbsp; D&amp;D magic is designed to be a reliable tool (for good reasons), not a crap-shoot.&nbsp; But in S&amp;S, it's a crap shoot; which means that it's got to be more powerful.&nbsp; Powerful but unreliable magic is very hard to make work for a game, because it's balanced over several encounters but makes the outcome of an individual encounter based a lot on luck (even if there's good design in terms of making the player's skill count in how far to push the envelope).&nbsp; Your magic user is often going to blow away an otherwise difficult encounter, or suddenly turn into a slavering demon without warning.&nbsp; This is an inherent difficulty with the S&amp;S genre, not any particular game.From what I've seen, SW strikes a fairly good spot for magic.&nbsp; Again, I haven't read most of the other games that have been suggested here, so I can't make a worthwhile comparison.&nbsp; All I can do is point out that D&amp;D of any edition is hardwired more or less for higher fantasy.I've got problems with SW - it's more like 3e than I like; skills (although they're bundled in the same fashion I've heard they are in True20), feats (which reduce free-form, narrative combat) and interpersonal &quot;charisma&quot; die rolls.&nbsp; From my 1e perspective, these are handled much better in SW than in 3e, but they're still there.&nbsp; These objections don't make it lean toward or away from S&amp;S - they're just things I don't like about 3e that also appear in SW.&nbsp; For dyed in the wool d20 likers, these are probably advantages rather than disadvantages.EDIT: I'm no SW proselytizer - I actually play 1e and have not played SW more than a couple of test combats.&nbsp; It's just that for the purpose of this thread, my best answer out of games I've tried is SW, not 1e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mythmere1, post: 3686885, member: 26563"] I agree with the gang that says D&D has to be mashed a bit to fit it into a real sword and sorcery style, although 1e and 3e both presuppose a fairly sword & sorcery world -- it's just that then the rules establish a higher fantasy ... um, interface, I guess is the best word I can come up with. Combat in D&D doesn't get lethal until it hits a certain point; great for wargaming and high fantasy, not quite the S&S feel. You can add a critical hit table to get closer, but D&D is intrinsically higher fantasy than the original pulp stories. Since that stems from a hit-point method of damage, I'd say that anything based on the SRD (which doesn't use a different damage mechanism) is going to have the same "higher fantasy" flaw. That's combat - the other side of the equation is magic. D&D magic is designed to be a reliable tool (for good reasons), not a crap-shoot. But in S&S, it's a crap shoot; which means that it's got to be more powerful. Powerful but unreliable magic is very hard to make work for a game, because it's balanced over several encounters but makes the outcome of an individual encounter based a lot on luck (even if there's good design in terms of making the player's skill count in how far to push the envelope). Your magic user is often going to blow away an otherwise difficult encounter, or suddenly turn into a slavering demon without warning. This is an inherent difficulty with the S&S genre, not any particular game. From what I've seen, SW strikes a fairly good spot for magic. Again, I haven't read most of the other games that have been suggested here, so I can't make a worthwhile comparison. All I can do is point out that D&D of any edition is hardwired more or less for higher fantasy. I've got problems with SW - it's more like 3e than I like; skills (although they're bundled in the same fashion I've heard they are in True20), feats (which reduce free-form, narrative combat) and interpersonal "charisma" die rolls. From my 1e perspective, these are handled much better in SW than in 3e, but they're still there. These objections don't make it lean toward or away from S&S - they're just things I don't like about 3e that also appear in SW. For dyed in the wool d20 likers, these are probably advantages rather than disadvantages. EDIT: I'm no SW proselytizer - I actually play 1e and have not played SW more than a couple of test combats. It's just that for the purpose of this thread, my best answer out of games I've tried is SW, not 1e. [/QUOTE]

Verification