The problem with D&D

[T. Foster]

Runequest is a great game that would address most of the problems you have with D&D. It is much deadlier though, so players can't just go rushing into combat.

I can't remember which edition though. Either 2nd to 3rd, not the new one that just came out.

RQ 2nd edition is simpler and has more specific flavor built into the rules (which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective); RQ 3rd edition is more comprehensive and polished, but also more complicated, less flavorful, and some of the rules additions (specifically fatigue and sorcery) are somewhere between clunky and broken (depending, again, on your perspective). RQ2 was published in 1980 by Chaosium; RQ3 in 1984 (as a boxed set, a single perfect-bound book edition with the same guts was published in 1993) by Avalon Hill and is generally much easier to find (and therefore cheaper); Games Workshop did UK releases of both which I'm not directly familiar with (though from what I understand the GW RQ2 was identical to Chaosium's version except for the cover art, while the GW RQ3 was completely reorganized (and split into 2 hardback books -- Basic RQ and Advanced RQ) and had some stuff cut out).

 

[MerricB]

I agree with this completely. Gygax went with a d20-based system (rather than the previous 2d6 based system) for combat and saving throws in D&D because he wanted a flat probability distribution and (I suspect, though he's never confirmed this) heavy random element, but retained d6 and d% based rolls in most other areas. The move towards using d20 for everything for the sake of consistency is, IMO, a mistake. (And, FWIW, one of my long-standing house-rule projects is an attempt to move D&D back to 2d6-based rolls for combat and saving throws -- but that's a tough battle against a very ingrained tradition.)

Err - if I might note, Gygax uses a flat probability system with d6 and d% as well. The grain of the system changes, but it's still a flat probability system. This is as compared to 3d6, which gives a curve, and is what the poster wants.

In all of its incarnations, D&D has used a flat probability system for resolution. (The exception is opposed rolls in 3e, which give a "curve"... well, a triangle. )

The *advantage* of a flat system is that it allows a +1 bonus to always have the same meaning, and for a wider range of values to be significant. It also allows the someone who is worse to compete. The *disadvantage* is that someone that is better doesn't have as big an advantage.

Personally, I think a curve system is at its best when you want the players to succeed most of the time, and the values are adjusted in such a manner. Compare Runebound 1st edition (which uses d20) to Runebound 2nd edition (which uses 2d10). I think the 2e version of combat is superior because it's much easier to gauge whether you'll succeed or not.

However, for a game with as many power levels as D&D has (and I speak of all editions), then the flat probability system is better.

(One can see one of the big flaws of 3d6 in the GURPS 3e skill system, where skills were based on an attribute, normally Int. If you got a 16 Int, your chance of success was almost total for everything...)

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

RQ 2nd edition is simpler and has more specific flavor built into the rules (which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective); RQ 3rd edition is more comprehensive and polished, but also more complicated, less flavorful, and some of the rules additions (specifically fatigue and sorcery) are somewhere between clunky and broken (depending, again, on your perspective). RQ2 was published in 1980 by Chaosium; RQ3 in 1984 (as a boxed set, a single perfect-bound book edition with the same guts was published in 1993) by Avalon Hill and is generally much easier to find (and therefore cheaper); Games Workshop did UK releases of both which I'm not directly familiar with (though from what I understand the GW RQ2 was identical to Chaosium's version except for the cover art, while the GW RQ3 was completely reorganized (and split into 2 hardback books -- Basic RQ and Advanced RQ) and had some stuff cut out).

I rather wish I had a copy of RQ 2e. I have 3e (and I'm not a fan), but I have a lot of fond memories of 2e.

Cheers!

 

[Arkhandus]

It seems pretty obvious to me that Xini does not, in fact, want to be playing D&D at all. He wants to be playing GURPS, HERO, or something of the sort. Maybe Mutants & Masterminds would even be more to his liking?

Edited out other stuff, since apparently a bit of snarkiness and sarcasm = badwrong? :\

 

[hong]

To my mind D&D 3.5 is a game with out limits.

D&D know no limit?

 

[thedungeondelver]

D&D know no limit?

SILENCE!

You are Ron.

 

[hong]

SILENCE!

You are Ron.

Naturally. We are all Ron.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I second the recommendation for Runequest. It cuts out virtually everything the OP dislikes.

 

[hong]

I apologize in advance for being kinda snarky after this point, but I'm seriously wondering why he ever played D&D in the first place if most of its core conceits don't fit his idea of a playable fantasy RPG at all.

Looks like "network externalities" to me.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Naturally. We are all Ron.

Of course.

Be seeing you.