[Venting] I feel a bit dirty...

[JoeGKushner]

Vampire/White Wolf - Nature/Demeanor. The clans are pretty much character classes too. Part of the reason for Vampire's success imo is that it so closely resembles D&D. Rifts using the Palladium system is very popular too.

I'm not gonna completely disagree but in the few games I played, character creation was a lot more option from step one. The nWoD seems even more 'point' based so to speak.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Great idea. But the templates must be called classes and they must precede the 'toolkit' in the rulebook. Templates chapter 1 or 2. Toolkit in an appendix or supplement.

I could deal wtih that.

I want the game to be more... open and consistent. I'd like it to be more like Fuzion when Champions and Interlock merged not in game type, but in design. there were numerous check boxes that told you what using an option at various levels could do to your campaign. Let me see the thinking behind the toys and not just the toys themselves.

 

[JoeGKushner]

They are, and always have been, a communication tool. What are the two most important things about a character? - his party role and power level. Thornir nailed it in this quote -

It's impossible to overstate the importance of communication in rpgs. They're nothing but communication, almost entirely oral.

So if D&D did go to a point system and a guy showed up with full plate armor, great sword, and massive strength and constitution, the GM would think it's a thief?

Either you're underestimating what a GM does or I'm overestimating it. I've seen many a fighter who couldn't out fight the thief and many a dusk blade would could out spell a wizard.

 

[Desdichado]

Really? 100%? Well, you are entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong.

Tell me, if D&D was so mediocre, why hasn't another game come along to knock it off its perch? Thirty years later, people still seem to prefer D&D. There must be more behind that than simple nostalgia. Plenty of people first discovered the game with 3.0/3.5, after all; does nostalgia factor much for them? But perhaps you just meant the alignment mechanic is mediocre? That would be a much more tenable position.

Yes, you're absolutely right. The secret to D&D's success is alignment. That's the reason no other game has ever come close to capturing it's market share; because no other game uses alignment.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Really? 100%? Well, you are entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong.

Tell me, if D&D was so mediocre, why hasn't another game come along to knock it off its perch?

You really think theres more 1st edition games going than 3rd? Its gotten a ton better than the overrated and needlessly convoluted system that was initially spawned.

Can alignment be mishandled? Yes, of course - it is a qualitative, not a quantitative mechanic, therefore some things must necessarily be open to interpretation. However, it is not meant to restrict,

Tell that to anyone wanting to use an aligned weapon, spell, feat, etc. Tell that to the bard who has a chode DM who insists his behavior is too lawful. Paladin threads. Nuff said. Alignment has NEVER added anything positive. Continue to be blinded by nostalgia if you want.

You don't want to be limited by morality or the constraints of society? Fine! Then play one of the morally loose alignments! CN is usually the amoralists alignment of choice - they can avoid the danger of detect evil, while still being free to mostly act as they want.

Chaotic neutral doesnt accurately describe most people. In fact, alignment doesnt. Ask 10 gamers to name alignments for Indiana Jones, Batman, Han Solo, Carmella Soprano, etc. You'll get 10 different lists. Lumping them all into CN doesnt really make sense, does it, despite all of them having ambigious morals at times. Alignment is garbage.

 

[PhantomNarrator]

You really think theres more 1st edition games going than 3rd? Its gotten a ton better than the overrated and needlessly convoluted system that was initially spawned.

I never said that, did I? I said a significant percentage never made the switch. Anyway, I am not arguing which edition is "better," but rather, which sacred cows should remain in 4ed?

I simply feel that alignments are a core part of D&D, and I would like to see them stay; this is only partly out of nostalgia. I genuinely feel they add to the setting in myriad ways, from the spells to the classes to the nature of the D&D multiverse itself. You think alignments make things worse? Very well. Perhaps your experiences were different from mine. However, I do find it amusing that you think earlier versions of the game were more convoluted than the present one.

Tell that to anyone wanting to use an aligned weapon, spell, feat, etc. Tell that to the bard who has a chode DM who insists his behavior is too lawful. Paladin threads. Nuff said. Alignment has NEVER added anything positive. Continue to be blinded by nostalgia if you want.

You are attacking a strawman. I invite you to re-read my previous posts on this thread - IF you plan to remove alignment, you need to bear in mind the cascading effects it will have. That doesn't change the fact that alignment is primarily a qualitative mechanic. You think alignments have never done anything good for the game? Fine, remove them! I personally would like to see them stay, for reasons I've already described, which, you will note, have nothing to do with nostalgia. But by all means, do continue knocking down arguments I never made, I won't take offense.

Chaotic neutral doesnt accurately describe most people. In fact, alignment doesnt. Ask 10 gamers to name alignments for Indiana Jones, Batman, Han Solo, Carmella Soprano, etc. You'll get 10 different lists. Lumping them all into CN doesnt really make sense, does it, despite all of them having ambigious morals at times. Alignment is garbage.

Oh, we're looking for a simulation now, are we? Well then, while you're at it, why don't we change the combat system? After all, it does a terrible job of accurately reflecting "real world" combat. And dump spells too, since magic is just superstition - "real world" occultism doesn't work that way. The feats will probably have to go too . . .

Making an argument that you don't like a mechanic because it isn't "accurate" enough is a pretty sandy foundation to build a house on, if you take my meaning.

 

[GreatLemur]

Augury is right.

Alignment systems, as a general rule, are straight jackets for roleplay, and D&D's in particular is responsible for amazing amounts of completely retarded character behavior. All it adds to the game is a system that allows morality to impact game mechanics, and that's something I could do without.

Vancian magic is at the top of the list of things that have always felt wrong about D&D, since I was a kid with a Red Box and a bunch of hand-colored dice. It's an interesting and flavorful variant of a magic system, but as the dominant paradigm of all core-class spellcasting, it really, really needs to go.

Classes are the other big reason I favored other RPGs over D&D for most of my gaming history. I'm not interested in recreating traditional fantasy archetypes, or filling specialized roles in hyper-efficient dungeon-delving teams. I want a flexible toolset that I can use to make a wide variety of characters. D&D 3E brought me back with feats, skills, and multiclassing rules that weren't completely insane, but things could still be more flexible. I'm not really asking for fully point-based characters, though. For D&D, I'd say True20's style of generic classes makes the most sense.

I'm not gonna completely disagree but in the few games I played, character creation was a lot more option from step one. The nWoD seems even more 'point' based so to speak.

It's still basically a race-and-class character system. Honestly, D&D is more flexible than World of Darkness, these days.

Chaotic neutral doesnt accurately describe most people. In fact, alignment doesnt. Ask 10 gamers to name alignments for Indiana Jones, Batman, Han Solo, Carmella Soprano, etc. You'll get 10 different lists. Lumping them all into CN doesnt really make sense, does it, despite all of them having ambigious morals at times. Alignment is garbage.

Oh, we're looking for a simulation now, are we? Well then, while you're at it, why don't we change the combat system? After all, it does a terrible job of accurately reflecting "real world" combat. And dump spells too, since magic is just superstition - "real world" occultism doesn't work that way. The feats will probably have to go too . . .

Making an argument that you don't like a mechanic because it isn't "accurate" enough is a pretty sandy foundation to build a house on, if you take my meaning.

I don't think accuracy to the real world is quite the issue, here. The problem is that the alignment system fails to do the very thing that it's supposed to do: Classify and describe the philosophies and moralities of interesting fictional characters. The very fact that people can't agree on what "Chaotic Neutral" means indicates that the system isn't working.

 

[PhantomNarrator]

Yes, you're absolutely right. The secret to D&D's success is alignment. That's the reason no other game has ever come close to capturing it's market share; because no other game uses alignment.

Your sarcasm is noted, but this is another strawman argument. I never claimed that D&D's success was due to alignment, or any other particular mechanic, for that matter. I do, however, acknowledge that no other game has come on the market that so significantly improves on the RPG that people abandon D&D for it in significant numbers. Not because those games aren't genuinely "better" - mechanically, some of them undoubtedly are. Rather, D&D delivers everything it promises to, and does it well enough that it satisfies the needs of most people for a fun and playable game. This virtue of the game through numerous editions explains why so many remain loyal to it.

My fundamental point is that certain things about D&D make it D&D. I would put classes, certain iconic monsters, polyhedral dice, Vancian magic, and yes, alignments in that category. If you don't like those things just modify your own D&D campaign with house rules, or convince your players to try GURPS, Fantasy HERO or Ars Magica. I would prefer to see an evolutionary change, not a radical one. That's what variant and house rules are for.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I simply feel that alignments are a core part of D&D, and I would like to see them stay; this is only partly out of nostalgia. I genuinely feel they add to the setting in myriad ways, from the spells to the classes to the nature of the D&D multiverse itself. You think alignments make things worse? Very well. Perhaps your experiences were different from mine. However, I do find it amusing that you think earlier versions of the game were more convoluted than the present one.

Yeah, because 1st edition was so simple, where you frequently subtracted bonuses, and rolling high and low for checks was decided by tossing darts at a board.

You are attacking a strawman. I invite you to re-read my previous posts on this thread - IF you plan to remove alignment, you need to bear in mind the cascading effects it will have. That doesn't change the fact that alignment is primarily a qualitative mechanic. You think alignments have never done anything good for the game? Fine, remove them! I personally would like to see them stay, for reasons I've already described, which, you will note, have nothing to do with nostalgia. But by all means, do continue knocking down arguments I never made, I won't take offense.

So you're saying you never said alignment wasnt restrictive? Thats pretty funny, because I quoted you saying exactly that. Alignment IS restrictive. Thats ALL it is actually. If you want to backpedal, feel free. But I'm attacking something you said.

Oh, we're looking for a simulation now, are we? Well then, while you're at it, why don't we change the combat system? After all, it does a terrible job of accurately reflecting "real world" combat. And dump spells too, since magic is just superstition - "real world" occultism doesn't work that way. The feats will probably have to go too . . .

Making an argument that you don't like a mechanic because it isn't "accurate" enough is a pretty sandy foundation to build a house on, if you take my meaning.

Actually none of those are nearly as subjective as alignment. Most people can agree that when you pick up and roll 5d6 damage for your fireball, you dealt 5d6. Most people CANT agree on what lawful, chaotic, good or evil mean. The other mechanics arent primarily subjective. Alignment is.

 

[PhantomNarrator]

I don't think accuracy to the real world is quite the issue, here. The problem is that the alignment system fails to do the very thing that it's supposed to do: Classify and describe the philosophies and moralities of interesting fictional characters. The very fact that people can't agree on what "Chaotic Neutral" means indicates that the system isn't working.

You won't find me arguing that there are no problems with the alignment system. Nothing as complex as a person, even a fictional person, can be adequately described by an alignment - whole biographies can be written on someone and still there would be room for argument. Alignments are not there to determine your personality, but your attitudes towards how society should be organized and respect for sentient life. Since these are very complex subjects in our own world and in the best fiction, you should hardly be surprised by the occasional disagreement.

What I think we need is a more robust alignment system, perhaps rated by degree, so that adhering to alignment is more important for certain characters than others. Combined with a loyalty and reputation system, this should solve most of the more ambiguous points. Even better would be individual codes of conduct broken down by church, even if it is as simple to say that any and all actions are permitted. Alignments can then move more to the background as a kind of distant moral constant that influences the world indirectly.