Third Edition Culture- Is is sustainable?

[Faraer]

And I take it other people have noticed that this talk about the next 'progession' of D&D sounds just like what people were saying in the late 70s and which led to RuneQuest, Chivalry & Sorcery, GURPS, Rolemaster, etc.?

 

[Sebastian Francis]

i think in my head "mainstream" and "faddish" are pretty similar. I suppose mainstream is more enduring, but who sets the limits? Regardless, i agree that DnD is around to stay no matter what other than nuclear holocaust, and even then we can still play with rocks and charcoal.

I don't know how people will play D&D during World War III, but I *do* know how they will play during World War IV...with sticks and stones.

 

[barsoomcore]

It's always so interesting to discover how many things that one takes for granted about a game are not taken for granted by other players.

It's become clear, for example, that many people in this thread are talking about Dungeons and Dragons.

See? You probably took that for granted. I, on the other hand, took for granted that we were talking about "that game I play that starts with D&D but includes that whole mess of house rules and agreements and assumptions and cool ideas that I've strapped on to it over the years, and includes things like guns and new classes (and ripping out entire chunks of the existing rules), mainly because D&D as it stands is just not my cup of tea".

I have played Dungeons and Dragons exactly ONCE in the last, say twenty years. Ended in a TPK, but was fun otherwise.

That said, I don't particularly want D&D to change. I do so much tinkering and mucking about in the guts of the rules anyways, a change doesn't help me much. Class-based, cultural/racial shortcuts, spell slots and attack/damage separation are just a part of the whole shebang.

I find d20 easy to wing NOT because (as was extrapolated from my previous post) it has a single resolution mechanic. That helps, but the reason it's easy to wing is because the rules, working from that mechanic, MAKE SENSE. It's entirely possible to have a single-mechanic system where the mechanic gets applied in goofy ways. Feats that impact the behaviour of the mechanic aren't a big problem (at least, not for me) because either somebody remembers them or they don't. And if you forget you had Combat Reflexes, well, too bad for you. Remember next time. If you DO remember, the application of a feat is (for any reasonably-well-defined feat, and I try to weed out the not-reasonably-well-defined ones) consistent and usually pretty straightforward.

How does Bull Rush intersect with Combat Reflexes? Well, do you get an AoO or not? You do? Okay, that's one AoO for you this round. You've got X more. Doesn't seem very complicated to me.

*shrug*

I guess I find it easy to wing, is all. And enjoyable when I do. MUCH more so than I ever found Shadowrun or Fantasy Hero, for example.

 

[Doug McCrae]

And I take it other people have noticed that this talk about the next 'progession' of D&D sounds just like what people were saying in the late 70s and which led to RuneQuest, Chivalry & Sorcery, GURPS, Rolemaster, etc.?

More like Tunnels & Trolls, if the complaint is too much complexity. As opposed to lack of realism, which gave rise to C&S and RuneQuest.

 

[eyebeams]

It's become clear, for example, that many people in this thread are talking about Dungeons and Dragons.

"Cuz D20 ain't nothin' but dice and mods," right?

See? You probably took that for granted. I, on the other hand, took for granted that we were talking about "that game I play that starts with D&D but includes that whole mess of house rules and agreements and assumptions and cool ideas that I've strapped on to it over the years, and includes things like guns and new classes (and ripping out entire chunks of the existing rules), mainly because D&D as it stands is just not my cup of tea".

This is not an argument for the system. It's an argument for your house rules.

I find d20 easy to wing NOT because (as was extrapolated from my previous post) it has a single resolution mechanic. That helps, but the reason it's easy to wing is because the rules, working from that mechanic, MAKE SENSE.

What you're saying is, it's not the resolution mechanic -- it's actually the resolution mechanic.

It's entirely possible to have a single-mechanic system where the mechanic gets applied in goofy ways. Feats that impact the behaviour of the mechanic aren't a big problem (at least, not for me) because either somebody remembers them or they don't. And if you forget you had Combat Reflexes, well, too bad for you.

This proves my point. Standard D20 (as embodied by the SRDs) is designed to promote system mastery as a player goal, and promotes a type of fun where the player strives to get good at the game by becoming proficient with the ins and outs of the system. There's nothing wrong with this -- but not everybody wants to play this way.

How does Bull Rush intersect with Combat Reflexes? Well, do you get an AoO or not? You do? Okay, that's one AoO for you this round. You've got X more. Doesn't seem very complicated to me.

Sure -- except that if you forget that Bull Rush brings an AoO, you hurt a character with Combat Reflexes more than you hurt other characters and screw a character with Improved Bull Rush, to boot, since their advantages have been nullified. That kind of interaction is problematic. And then let's not foprget the poetry of:

"Note: The defender provokes attacks of opportunity if he is moved. So do you, if you move with him. The two of you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from each other, however."

Bull Rush can actually provoke up to 3 AoOs in two different targets. Too simple to remember, eh?

 

[Rasyr]

Quite a bit off-topic - sorry...

Sometimes it's just the small things that get in the way of liking a game. I actually have a copy of HARP (the first release, but I believe the second is not much different). At first glance it looked very much like D&D, so the transition seemed to be easy enough. Of course, the resolution mechanics differs quite a lot .

The small thing? I don't like percentile dice. That's unnecessary number juggling for me. This bothers me the more the more I realized that the granularity given by percentile dice could often be reduced to a d20 .

Actually, there were one or two large changes, and a number of smaller ones. All of the changes however are available via several free PDFs on the HARP website -- http://www.harphq.com/webextras.htm -- in the HARP Revised section. On that page there is also a pdf called HARP d20fied, which gives rules for using a d20 with HARP rather than percentile dice, including d20fied versions of the monsters, the maneuver table, and a number of other things, it is in a zip file which also contains a spreadsheet chargen program to help with this.

Also, in case you didn't know. Since you have one of the first printings, you are entitled to a $15 discount for another purchase from ICE (just contact customer service, and Lori will take care of you after verifying that you have a copy of the first printing).

 

[Kormydigar]

How about a cleric of deception and thievery? What if I wanted to sacrifice my turning undead ability for additional skill points?

What if I wanted to make a mendicant (traveling, begging priest). Can I trade my armor proficiency off for something more useful? I'm a pacifist. Can I replace my BAB with something more appropriate to my character concept?

When I want to play something not "off the shelf" I use GURPS. Then I can make whatever I want and not feel constrained. In any class system there will be artificial limitations. The other option is to build a large base of sub-classes that fill the needs of a particular campaign. I have done this to some extent but a lot of work is involved to insure that the new classes are in balance with existing ones.

 

[barsoomcore]

Jeez, that was lot more... enthusiastic than I expected.

"Cuz D20 ain't nothin' but dice and mods," right?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. But sure, sounds good. I mean, no, not at all. Or maybe. Yes. No. What he said. Forty-seven. Argentina. A small, vice-like object.

This is not an argument for the system. It's an argument for your house rules.

Actually, it's not an argument at all. It's an observation, in the "Isn't life interesting sometimes" sort of way. Just pointing out that what I've been talking about isn't what everyone else has been talking about, so no wonder I'm disagreeing. Not saying that, um, well, whatever it is you think I'm saying, I guess.

Honestly, all I meant was, "Hey, I've just figured out why so much of what people are saying in this thread seems so weird to me." I wasn't making any sort of argument at all.

What you're saying is, it's not the resolution mechanic -- it's actually the resolution mechanic.

Sorry, I must have been unclear. A single resolution mechanic can be implemented in a variety of ways. To say that d20 is easy to wing because it has a single resolution mechanic is wrong. It's easy to wing because a single resolution mechanic is well-implemented.

If we take the single mechanic as being "d20 + mods compared to DC" -- well, it would still be possible for Bull Rush, to continue with our example, to work in some fashion that employed that mechanic but made no logical sense. Bull Rush might say, for example, "When making a Bull Rush, first make an Intimidate check, but against the target's mother's level." That would still be using the same mechanic, but it would be poorly-implemented (putting it mildly) and we shouldn't expect anyone to be able to wing such a system and approximate rightness.

But because Bull Rush says, "move into their space, draw AoO, opposed Str checks" (more or less) it's easy to wing it and come up with roughly the right ruling. In fact, that's what I just did, as I wrote that.

I'm not saying that when winging d20 you'll ALWAYS get the PERFECT ruling that's identical to what's in the book. I'm not saying you'll always take into account every detail there is to account for. I'm just saying I've found that my off-the-cuff rulings tend to correlate pretty well with the actual ruling, which makes me ever-more confident in winging it, which leads to me not even open the books in many sessions nowadays. So far my players aren't complaining, but I admit it is possible they are harbouring deep-seated resentment about the feats they worked so hard to acquire not getting used often enough to please them. Perhaps someday they will explode in murderous rage.

I'll take my chances.

 

[barsoomcore]

eyebeams, it seems like you're saying, "Regardless of whether or not d20 is easy to wing, it rewards players for rules mastery."

I haven't really addressed the "rewards players for rules mastery" issue, I guess. To me that's much more a function of the way the game is run. As you noted, my rulings on Bull Rush would disincentive a player to invest a lot of energy in rules mastery since they wouldn't get rewarded. And indeed, my players for the most part don't seem inclined towards acquiring mastery of the rules. Most of them don't own Player's Handbooks, for example. So if you play d20 games with ME, it's not rewarding you (or at least not very clearly/strongly) for rules mastery.

So I don't know as I think that the SYSTEM is the most important factor in "rewarding rules mastery"

And I don't know that it's true that d20 does so in any case. In some aspects (the tight relation of components such as feats and combat actions and so on) it certainly does, but in others (the encouragement to DMs to wing it that I've noted) it seems not to do so.

These things are rarely black and white.

 

[Turjan]

On that page there is also a pdf called HARP d20fied, which gives rules for using a d20 with HARP rather than percentile dice, including d20fied versions of the monsters, the maneuver table, and a number of other things, it is in a zip file which also contains a spreadsheet chargen program to help with this.

Hey, that chargen program based on a spreadsheet is really cool . Being a spreadsheet means that it is easy to modify. Thanks !