Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="vturlough" data-source="post: 229267" data-attributes="member: 3268">Clarifying continuesGreetings!Again, thanks to all those who replied.I follow the 80/20 rule with regards to DND.  I like 80% of it but the part I don't like, I don't like.  Sometimes a lot.  The other part of that rule is that 80% of the players out there play DND and the rest play other games.  I can tell you this for sure.  Playing something else and then playing DND makes me appreciate DND for its strengths.****Psion:  First of all, that is unfair.  While I am not a new member to the boards, I haven't posted in a while.  Perhaps my first post shouldn't have been something that you obviously care about.  Having said that, in either case but especially for a new player, shouldn't we always welcome open discussion when one critizes a system we like?  If nothing else, it helps us get better at it to be able to defend it!  In general, though, there are always going to be people who have an opinion similar to mine who will want to talk about it.  I don't want to shut anyone down.  Unless you think I was being rude about it, because who wants to read it if it is rude?  I don't think I was but I welcome comments on that.I also read the LoS by Monte and I agree in theory but there is a big difference between what he said and what is put into practice.  Classes can still exist without having access to powers no one else can have.  Levels can still exist without such a big jump in ability.  I don't agree with his hit point assessment personally.  Not because he is wrong in what he says but more because of what the statement implies.  Yes, a player will have an idea of how much 20 points of damage is to him through all the levels.  But, it HAD TO BE DESCRIBED IN GAME TERMS!  He didn't say a broken arm, lacerations, punctured lung, bruises or anything remotely non game like!  That is circular logic, then, because you have to refer to the game system to understand what the game system is saying!  That's what doesn't work for me.  Why can't we have real life terms mean something in game terms?  And also, Monte also seems to gloss over pretty quickly that more people play DND than anything else.  I tried for over a decade to get my players to try something else and it never worked.  I finally tried to force it on them and if I had, I would have lost my players.  I didn't want to do that.  As Dennis Miller said, "that's why Eskimos eat blubber.  It's the only thing on the Arctic buffet!"****To those who commented on HPs:In general, good ideas but the problem is the abstraction of HPs is still there.  Yes, you can define it as the ability to withstand deadly damage.  (There is only up or dead in DND.  Nothing between.)  Yes, you can use VP/WP from SW and say it is the ability to avoid damage.  You can even say it is a pain threshold.  In the end, though, they still mean nothing.  It is just whatever definition you want to apply to them to make sense out of them.I want to know why I have to make sense out of them.  Why doesn't the game do that for me?Take this example.  High level rogue, lvl 10, is surrounded by warriors.  Two evil wizards blast at him with fireballs.  The rogue, completely surrounded by people, makes his two reflex saves and with Improved Invasion (although he didn't need it if he made) he walks out of the circle of corpses that are the fighters.  Two things there.  One, who likes that reality?  Don't get me wrong!  I LOVE the HEROIC system that is DND.  When the system goes overboard, though, it starts getting ridiculous.  It is like always being right.  That gets boring after a while.  Low level DND is so interesting precisely because a couple of lucky shots can down someone.  There is a nervous feeling about battle.  After 12th level, though, players don't have to worry as much.  There  are very few instant kills and a DM obviously can't abuse them or he will lose players.  What this does, though, is make combat lose its edge.  You don't care about the first five or ten hits because you know your character can take them.  Two, the game mechanics then define the role playing.  Most of the time that is okay and how it should be.  What I don't like is when it sets up the players charging loaded crossbows, knowing the crossbows can't kill them with one shot!  It sets up doing ridiculous things as nearly common place.  I mean, shouldn't some things kill a person, regardless of experience?  How does being 20th level give a fighter a better poison resistance than a 1st level fighter?  What if the 20th level fighter had never been poisoned before?  Also, from what I know of poisons, there are some things you can't resist.  They are just going to do damage to you.  Now, this isn't heroic, so that's why it is done.  i agree with that.  My point is that it is taken too far.  I bring this up because many on this board argue ROLE playing.  And what I have said before is that the game mechanics set up the role playing.  DND, being heroic, sets up characters that can do a lot before dying.  It doesn't always make sense to me.  That is part of what I am trying to say here.  ****In the end, all I said was this.  DND isn't perfect and here is why I think that.  I wanted to express my opinion to see what others thought.  I am glad for the responses I have received.  I am glad that we have been civil about it with no flames.  I do welcome all opinions.  Thanks!turloughbtw, I still think Alternity Rocks!  I have yet to read as good a system as that one.</blockquote>

Verification