times they are a changen....

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: Re: well...

I haven't even seen a d20 game that was so different that I'd call it a "different game." To me, D&D and d20 are synonomous, and all these variants are just that: variants on the same theme and mechanic.

Well, we've clearly established you haven't read Call of Cthulu:d20, then.

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Re: well...

come now.. you don't rewrite spells in your game to maintain what you consider "balance"?

joe b.

I have, in the past, turned role playing rules into pretzels. Those games were fun. But those stories can't directly help any one else, unless you know the whole campaign. The examples I give on this board are from a game that is as standard as I can make it, so they can be helpful to others.

Lets face it, there are some things D&D doesn't do well, and if you want to do them you need to rewrite spells and other rules. How can you expect those changes to work for every one elses game? Do you really think that the designers and playtesters of D&D did that bad of a job creating a system to handle what D&D does well, like dungeon crawls? I think the system is "balanced" for what it is for, a quick and dirty role playing system.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Re: Re: Re: well...

Well, we've clearly established you haven't read Call of Cthulu:d20, then.

Actually, I love d20 CoC, but the massive changes in feel were accomplished with a very minimal change in mechanics. The modifications to the d20 engine were very smooth and elegant, and mostly non-intrusive (except for the sanity, which didn't feel like a d20 mechanic at all.)

But I still don't think of it so much as a new game, as it is a stretching exercise of the same system: how far can it be pushed towards another genre and still work well?

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Re: well...

You think it's a "different game" and we can't even talk about it anymore if two spells are rewritten?!?

I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree. As far as I'm concerned, I haven't even seen a d20 game that was so different that I'd call it a "different game." To me, D&D and d20 are synonomous, and all these variants are just that: variants on the same theme and mechanic.

If it was only two spells in forrester's case, no, it isn't a different game. But the game he described had more changes than that, changes that cut to the core of the game. Forrester wants his PCs to be able to face a small army of better trained (higher level) characters. This is just not the case D&D was writen for.

As for d20 games, I would question your experience. Read "The End", for example. The largest hit die you get is a d4, and that is a PrC. There is no magical healing and certainly no way back from the dead. No real damage spells period. How can this possibly be on the same par as D&D? Would you be willing to drop Star Wars characters in a D&D setting? How about super heros?

I once played a game that allowed all d20 material and rule 0ed like there was no tomorrow. The combinations allowed for some of the most rule-bendingly insane combinations I have ever heard of. We accidently burned half an elven forest to the ground with fireballs. We were 4th level. 27 fireballs went off in that encounter. That was the first session. Can I bring the character from that game into your game?

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: well...

Actually, I love d20 CoC, but the massive changes in feel were accomplished with a very minimal change in mechanics. The modifications to the d20 engine were very smooth and elegant, and mostly non-intrusive (except for the sanity, which didn't feel like a d20 mechanic at all.)

But I still don't think of it so much as a new game, as it is a stretching exercise of the same system: how far can it be pushed towards another genre and still work well?

Have you ever quoted a specific rule from CoC here, I mean one that is not in the core books of D&D?

What works well in a CoC game won't in Star Wars.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Re: Re: Re: well...

If it was only two spells in forrester's case, no, it isn't a different game. But the game he described had more changes than that, changes that cut to the core of the game. Forrester wants his PCs to be able to face a small army of better trained (higher level) characters. This is just not the case D&D was writen for.

Yes, but they did so through tactics and strategy, not through changes in the rules. Now, are you telling me that changes in the feel of the game, regardless of the mechanics, can make it not D&D?

As for d20 games, I would question your experience. Read "The End", for example. The largest hit die you get is a d4, and that is a PrC. There is no magical healing and certainly no way back from the dead. No real damage spells period. How can this possibly be on the same par as D&D? Would you be willing to drop Star Wars characters in a D&D setting? How about super heros?

That's not the same point, I never said a d20 CoC character would be balanced against a standard D&D character of the same level. I merely wonder how you can say that it's "a different game" when the mechanics are the same. I'm also stating my position as a "lumper" rather than a "splitter" (actually a taxonomic slang-term, although in taxonomy I'm a splitter rather than a lumper!) when it comes to games -- why make a huge deal over these differences when the underlying architecture leads to such dramatic similarities that you could combine the two with fairly little work? d20 CoC even has a chapter at the end with guidelines for doing exactly that. The presence of magical healing or resurrect dead isn't what makes D&D, the d20 mechanic is what makes D&D.

I once played a game that allowed all d20 material and rule 0ed like there was no tomorrow. The combinations allowed for some of the most rule-bendingly insane combinations I have ever heard of. We accidently burned half an elven forest to the ground with fireballs. We were 4th level. 27 fireballs went off in that encounter. That was the first session. Can I bring the character from that game into your game?

Certainly not, because like Forrester, I prefer a more low-magic, "realistic" setting. But that doesn't mean we're not playing the same game, they're both just variations on the same theme with the same mechanics.

 

[Forrester]

Re: Re: Re: Re: well...

If it was only two spells in forrester's case, no, it isn't a different game. But the game he described had more changes than that, changes that cut to the core of the game. Forrester wants his PCs to be able to face a small army of better trained (higher level) characters. This is just not the case D&D was writen for.

Er . . . what the hell are you talking about? What changes "cut to the core of the game"? Up to this point, I've changed Commune (as far as availability) and Scry. Those are the only key changes I've made. If you think that those spells are at the "core of the game", you're insane.

Are you saying that it's impossible to run a D&D campaign where the PCs can't just walk into any room and start swinging -- where, instead, they have to use tactics and strategy and actually *think* to defeat their opponents?

I'll point out that they aren't facing a "small army of higher level characters" -- they are (well, were) facing a small army of lower level characters, led by some higher-level muckety mucks.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: well...

Have you ever quoted a specific rule from CoC here, I mean one that is not in the core books of D&D?

What works well in a CoC game won't in Star Wars.

Only because it wouldn't be appropriate for the genre, not because it literally wouldn't work well. I can see dropping the Star Wars setting from the Star Wars game and throwing on Great Old Ones and insanity and having a blast with a completely homebrewed sci-fi setting.

The reason you can do this is because it's all the same mechanic -- hence my calling it all the same game. According to your logic, Forgotten Realms isn't D&D because it introduces a number of rules that aren't in the core rulebooks. I think you'd agree that that's just plain silly, but what's the difference between that and calling Star Wars or CoC, or WoT or Spycraft -- or whatever other d20 product -- a different game when elements from each are completely interchangeable?

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: well...

That's not the same point, I never said a d20 CoC character would be balanced against a standard D&D character of the same level. I merely wonder how you can say that it's "a different game" when the mechanics are the same. I'm also stating my position as a "lumper" rather than a "splitter" (actually a taxonomic slang-term, although in taxonomy I'm a splitter rather than a lumper!) when it comes to games -- why make a huge deal over these differences when the underlying architecture leads to such dramatic similarities that you could combine the two with fairly little work? d20 CoC even has a chapter at the end with guidelines for doing exactly that. The presence of magical healing or resurrect dead isn't what makes D&D, the d20 mechanic is what makes D&D.

The games are run with a very different mentality. You can not run a CoC the way you run Star Wars. The rules are very similar, but if you are remaining true to theme, the methods will be too different to compare. This disscussion long ago left the realm of rules and went to play/DM style. Rule changes are appropriate for some themes and not for others. The rules presented in the core rules represent one theme by what they allow you to accomplish. If you don't like that theme, you change it. If I do like it, I keep it. Now we are making different choices, based on what we want to play. We each are going to interpret or change the rules as they fit our theme. Themes must match before the rules matter, or we will just have a question of campaign world again.

Certainly not, because like Forrester, I prefer a more low-magic, "realistic" setting. But that doesn't mean we're not playing the same game, they're both just variations on the same theme with the same mechanics.

Strangely, I missed all the fireballs, and was the only character in the game that did not die. We are not playing the game because we are have sufficently different themes. I tend toward high level of power in my current game. How can we compare notes, we don't even want the same thing?

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: well...

Er . . . what the hell are you talking about? What changes "cut to the core of the game"? Up to this point, I've changed Commune (as far as availability) and Scry. Those are the only key changes I've made. If you think that those spells are at the "core of the game", you're insane.

Commune, Scry/Teleport, CR system. Your mentality in running is just not the same as mine. You don't like "cheaty" spells that the designers put in the game and many other groups use. Do you think we agree on what D&D should be?

I have never had a problem with commune, scry/teleport, or other spells. Of course, I don't abuse them, and neither do the players in my game. It hasn't come up, so there was no problem, the same as polymorph. I believe, in my current game, the rules were fairly well balanced and writen. All of them. I believe in tweaks, like the technicality of "bag-o-snails", need help, but by and large they are fine. You obviously don't like several things and change them. That is your right, just don't tell me that it should apply to the game I run.