Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5368931" data-attributes="member: 87792">And if that's the one I'm thinking of, he wasn't playing 3e with its rule for everything.&nbsp; It was explicitely an older edition, which was one of the suggestions I mentioned.&nbsp; 3e is probably the worst RPG going for this type of game (if we ignore FATAL - which is always wise).&nbsp;&nbsp;Of course he'd observe it in game.&nbsp; The fastest, simplest, and most efficient way of getting that knowledge to the character is through the character sheet.&nbsp; And in D&amp;D, the wizard and cleric would both know to within a level which level they were.&nbsp; It's trivial.&nbsp; Which level spells can they cast - discrete steps.&nbsp; The wizard would also have a reasonable idea of how much damage their fireball does - it is a standard and well known spell and can be quantified by testing it.&nbsp; At that point we might as well say in character that the fireball will break a Level 1 Standard Wooden Target, and normally a Level 2 - but seldom a Level 1 Standard Stone Target.&nbsp; Just give me the damn character sheet.&nbsp; It'll save time.&nbsp;&nbsp;If all they have is their equipment list then they wouldn't know their class features.&nbsp; They'd need to be blinded to not notice they could lay on hands.&nbsp;&nbsp;Yes.&nbsp; Of course they wouldn't know the exact mechanical effects.&nbsp; I don't know the exact mechanical effects of a fireball.&nbsp; On the other hand they would know approximations and probably with quantitative approximations.&nbsp; At that point you're simply talking about the DM rolling everything in secret rather than hiding the character sheet.&nbsp;&nbsp;In character he damn well would know whether people got out of the way, hardened their mind, or were simply too tough to affect.&nbsp; He would therefore know the type of save - just not the number.&nbsp; And that is one of the things the d20 roll deals with.&nbsp;As a reasonably bright PC in a D&amp;D world I would expect to know every class feature and feat I had, and every spell in my spellbook.&nbsp; At this point unless my character had brain damage, I'd consider a minimum of a character sheet with all the numbers erased necessary.&nbsp; Anything else indicates a spectacular lack of self-knowledge in someone who relies on their capabilities to stay alive.&nbsp; (And I'd expect approximations of the numbers as well - banded and modified for self image).&nbsp;&nbsp;Except that the reason he wants to run this is that apparently the players do and he doesn't like it.&nbsp;&nbsp;And this is why, as I have been saying all along, D&amp;D is a horrible game to run this sort of approach in.&nbsp; Something much more open would work a whole lot better.&nbsp; (4e has the germs of it in a way 3e doesn't - but 4e has its own levels of specificity for combat; you'd need to half strip the combat engine and at that point 4e isn't the game you want).&nbsp;&nbsp;And there's the kicker.&nbsp; If they want to play a concept rather than a class, they don't want the specifics and catches involved in 3e.&nbsp;&nbsp;You aren't actually reading what I'm writing, are you?&nbsp; The idea itself is not stupid.&nbsp; Where the stupid part comes in is trying to implement it in 3e/4e/Pathfinder (and AD&amp;D for that matter).&nbsp; Which is why I mentioned fresh lemon juice and milk.&nbsp; I like drinking lemonade.&nbsp; I like milk.&nbsp; But not together.&nbsp;I have repeatedly stated that it might work in other systems and my objections have been late-model (A)D&amp;D specific.&nbsp; (I think given the attitude of the OP it won't work in any system for him - but that's another story).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5368931, member: 87792"] And if that's the one I'm thinking of, he wasn't playing 3e with its rule for everything. It was explicitely an older edition, which was one of the suggestions I mentioned. 3e is probably the worst RPG going for this type of game (if we ignore FATAL - which is always wise). Of course he'd observe it in game. The fastest, simplest, and most efficient way of getting that knowledge to the character is through the character sheet. And in D&D, the wizard and cleric would both know to within a level which level they were. It's trivial. Which level spells can they cast - discrete steps. The wizard would also have a reasonable idea of how much damage their fireball does - it is a standard and well known spell and can be quantified by testing it. At that point we might as well say in character that the fireball will break a Level 1 Standard Wooden Target, and normally a Level 2 - but seldom a Level 1 Standard Stone Target. Just give me the damn character sheet. It'll save time. If all they have is their equipment list then they wouldn't know their class features. They'd need to be blinded to not notice they could lay on hands. Yes. Of course they wouldn't know the exact mechanical effects. I don't know the exact mechanical effects of a fireball. On the other hand they would know approximations and probably with quantitative approximations. At that point you're simply talking about the DM rolling everything in secret rather than hiding the character sheet. In character he damn well would know whether people got out of the way, hardened their mind, or were simply too tough to affect. He would therefore know the type of save - just not the number. And that is one of the things the d20 roll deals with. As a reasonably bright PC in a D&D world I would expect to know every class feature and feat I had, and every spell in my spellbook. At this point unless my character had brain damage, I'd consider a minimum of a character sheet with all the numbers erased [I]necessary.[/I] Anything else indicates a spectacular lack of self-knowledge in someone who relies on their capabilities to stay alive. (And I'd expect approximations of the numbers as well - banded and modified for self image). Except that the reason he wants to run this is that apparently the players [I]do[/I] and he doesn't like it. And this is why, as I have been saying all along, D&D is a [I]horrible[/I] game to run this sort of approach in. Something much more open would work a whole lot better. (4e has the germs of it in a way 3e doesn't - but 4e has its own levels of specificity for combat; you'd need to half strip the combat engine and at that point 4e isn't the game you want). And there's the kicker. If they want to play a concept rather than a class, they don't want the specifics and catches involved in 3e. You aren't actually reading what I'm writing, are you? The idea itself is not stupid. Where the stupid part comes in is trying to implement it in 3e/4e/Pathfinder (and AD&D for that matter). Which is why I mentioned fresh lemon juice and milk. I like drinking lemonade. I like milk. But not together. I have repeatedly stated that it might work in other systems and my objections have been late-model (A)D&D specific. (I think given the attitude of the OP it won't work in any system for him - but that's another story). [/QUOTE]

Verification