Count Dookkake
Member
.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PnP RPGs OT || Come play the REAL RPGs
- Thread starter dude
- Start date
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
I am unimpressed with Edge of the Empire.
They ported over many of the WH40k rules and added in Obligation to represent Han Solo's debt to Jabba, as though that needed to be represented by some mechanic. There aren't Obligations (or Reasons to Pout) that satisfy either Luke or Leia's experiences, so don't expect those. This part of the rules really betrays the narrow scope they were going for, as does the Force mechanic.
The Force takes on a mechanic that is similar to Warp/Chaos. Your actions don't dictate whether the dark side or light side controls your destiny. Instead, the Force mechanic basically has you roll for a couple of extra "tokens" to represent opportunities for the GM to either provide a boon or to greatly complicate a task. I guess it's better than having a third eye sprout due to a Chaos storm, but I don't understand why the Force represents a random modifier, rather than a reflection of consequences and karma.
They also seem to want to implement the same game release scheme for each character archetype/part of the galaxy as they did for 40k. This made sense with 40k, as that society is so regimented, but it seems strange that they seem to have just developed a Han Solo, Chewbacca, Lando Calrissian and Boba Fett book. To support this, I will point out that almost every piece of artwork has Han, Chewbacca, Lando, or Fett. You can sort of play Princess Leia as a politico and Luke Skywalker as a fringer with Force sensitivity, but Obi Wan is off limits, as is Vader or any Imperials for that matter, or Luke past ANH. I guess the other archetypes will also get their own books, eventually, but it seems like they're this is just going to appeal to the folks that want to do the criminal shit on the Outer Rim over fighting in the Rebellion (another book already on the schedule), be a Jedi, be a fascist, or anything else besides a criminal on the Outer Rim. Even soldiers, for your Clone game, are going to be difficult to run, as you're either gonna have to be a Bounty Hunter or a Hired Gun to get anywhere close to running that, and honestly those folks are really Boba Fett or Some Random Scum Guy Who Just Grimaced.
SAGA also did themed sourcebooks, but they didn't split the party in the goddamn main rule book. If they do what 40k did, you're basically going to have to rebuy the same main rules and compile your damn self to have a mixed party, which is dumb. Don't get me wrong... I like Han Solo and I happly play Han Solos, but compared to SAGA, it's seems like I got half a game and a lot of tools for screwing over players who would probably have been happier just playing 40k.
They ported over many of the WH40k rules and added in Obligation to represent Han Solo's debt to Jabba, as though that needed to be represented by some mechanic. There aren't Obligations (or Reasons to Pout) that satisfy either Luke or Leia's experiences, so don't expect those. This part of the rules really betrays the narrow scope they were going for, as does the Force mechanic.
The Force takes on a mechanic that is similar to Warp/Chaos. Your actions don't dictate whether the dark side or light side controls your destiny. Instead, the Force mechanic basically has you roll for a couple of extra "tokens" to represent opportunities for the GM to either provide a boon or to greatly complicate a task. I guess it's better than having a third eye sprout due to a Chaos storm, but I don't understand why the Force represents a random modifier, rather than a reflection of consequences and karma.
They also seem to want to implement the same game release scheme for each character archetype/part of the galaxy as they did for 40k. This made sense with 40k, as that society is so regimented, but it seems strange that they seem to have just developed a Han Solo, Chewbacca, Lando Calrissian and Boba Fett book. To support this, I will point out that almost every piece of artwork has Han, Chewbacca, Lando, or Fett. You can sort of play Princess Leia as a politico and Luke Skywalker as a fringer with Force sensitivity, but Obi Wan is off limits, as is Vader or any Imperials for that matter, or Luke past ANH. I guess the other archetypes will also get their own books, eventually, but it seems like they're this is just going to appeal to the folks that want to do the criminal shit on the Outer Rim over fighting in the Rebellion (another book already on the schedule), be a Jedi, be a fascist, or anything else besides a criminal on the Outer Rim. Even soldiers, for your Clone game, are going to be difficult to run, as you're either gonna have to be a Bounty Hunter or a Hired Gun to get anywhere close to running that, and honestly those folks are really Boba Fett or Some Random Scum Guy Who Just Grimaced.
SAGA also did themed sourcebooks, but they didn't split the party in the goddamn main rule book. If they do what 40k did, you're basically going to have to rebuy the same main rules and compile your damn self to have a mixed party, which is dumb. Don't get me wrong... I like Han Solo and I happly play Han Solos, but compared to SAGA, it's seems like I got half a game and a lot of tools for screwing over players who would probably have been happier just playing 40k.
So this Saturday I'll be running a Pathfinder game for a bunch of beginners who aren't even sure if they like PnP RPGs.
I have the Beginner Box, so plan to use that simplified ruleset, but I don't want to use any of the Beginner Box modules, due to them pretty much being straight dungeon crawls. Rather, I want to run an adventure that gives a broad feel for PnP, including elements of both proper NPC interaction and combat.
In theory it shouldn't be too hard to run a regular Pathfinder 1st level module using Beginner Box rules, right? Just so long as I do some prep-work in advance to simplify elements where necessary. Figured I'd spend $10 and get a Paizo module.
What module(s) would you guys recommend as a great all-round introduction to the various concepts of PnP RPGs?
I have the Beginner Box, so plan to use that simplified ruleset, but I don't want to use any of the Beginner Box modules, due to them pretty much being straight dungeon crawls. Rather, I want to run an adventure that gives a broad feel for PnP, including elements of both proper NPC interaction and combat.
In theory it shouldn't be too hard to run a regular Pathfinder 1st level module using Beginner Box rules, right? Just so long as I do some prep-work in advance to simplify elements where necessary. Figured I'd spend $10 and get a Paizo module.
What module(s) would you guys recommend as a great all-round introduction to the various concepts of PnP RPGs?
krypt0nian
Banned
Crypt of the Everflame would be my recommend, mostly dungeon, but has some character interaction beforehand which can easily be expanded upon, and also a bit in the dungeon. Amazing little story.
Also a bit off center because you play goblins, but We Be Goblins has all sorts of activities, is lighthearted and I believe the PDF is free from Paizo.com.
Also a bit off center because you play goblins, but We Be Goblins has all sorts of activities, is lighthearted and I believe the PDF is free from Paizo.com.
Count Dookkake
Member
.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
They're ok. If you've played non-d20 FFG games before, they're the usual gimmick dice. They're configured differently than the other games, so you can't necessarily take your WHFRP or WH40k RP dice and use them.
They're basically combinations of success/failure dice along with additional modifiers. They try to market it as allowing for "a rich tapestry of narrative possibilities". In reality it's something you can only use for their game and it's just dice... however, there's plenty of room to interpet what a critical failure or critical success actually means. They do have a conversion chart within the book to use various dies 6~12. Thankfully there's an application that they put out that lets you do all the rolling on a smart phone/tablet, though that also prevents you from lying or fudging much.
Okay, so what I did was just accept the fact I wasn't getting an epic roleplaying experience, and decided instead to just insert roleplaying into a module.
I downloaded the four Beginner Box bash modules, and from those I decided "Ruins" and "Tomes" would be the best for both showing off a wide variety of gameplay elements and also for inserting roleplaying where necessary. Ruins took us an hour to go through, Tomes about half that.
Everyone had a really great time. All but one were brand new to roleplaying, but they grasped the mechanics quick enough and even began thinking like the characters (ie. stopped asking "what should I do here?" and instead going "I want to try/ask/look for this"). I can genuinely say that the Beginner Box "Bash" modules are a much faster and less fiddly introduction for first-time players than the big dungeon crawl included in the box.
Having an adventure that can be completed in 30 minutes to an hour is a much superior method of getting people into something like this, as not only do they get a condensed flavour of what PnP RPGs, you also then have a natural pausing point to recap the rules, make sure everyone is understanding and enjoying things, grab some food/drink, and then onto the next adventure. Having each bash module be focussed on certain aspects of the game, certain scenarios players might face outside of "there's a dungeon, go through it" is also great for learning.
They're keen to see how a longer-form adventure plays out, so I've ordered Fangs from the Past after reading some decent reviews. I've also found an amazing website that has the extra classes and races from the full version of Pathfinder converted to work with Beginner Box rules:
http://edowarsblog.wordpress.com/downloads/
Which I think will help the people transition even better from Beginner Box rules to full-fat. Plan is to transition if they're still enjoying things after Fangs from the Past, and dive into Rise of the Runelords.
That said, I honestly think in many ways the Beginner Box ruleset would be a better choice if it was more fully fleshed out to reach level 20. Much as I enjoy the DnD3x style that most d20 games chose to employ, I cannot deny it has a lot in it that probably does not need to be in it, and often that gets in the way of the core of the game.
I downloaded the four Beginner Box bash modules, and from those I decided "Ruins" and "Tomes" would be the best for both showing off a wide variety of gameplay elements and also for inserting roleplaying where necessary. Ruins took us an hour to go through, Tomes about half that.
Everyone had a really great time. All but one were brand new to roleplaying, but they grasped the mechanics quick enough and even began thinking like the characters (ie. stopped asking "what should I do here?" and instead going "I want to try/ask/look for this"). I can genuinely say that the Beginner Box "Bash" modules are a much faster and less fiddly introduction for first-time players than the big dungeon crawl included in the box.
Having an adventure that can be completed in 30 minutes to an hour is a much superior method of getting people into something like this, as not only do they get a condensed flavour of what PnP RPGs, you also then have a natural pausing point to recap the rules, make sure everyone is understanding and enjoying things, grab some food/drink, and then onto the next adventure. Having each bash module be focussed on certain aspects of the game, certain scenarios players might face outside of "there's a dungeon, go through it" is also great for learning.
They're keen to see how a longer-form adventure plays out, so I've ordered Fangs from the Past after reading some decent reviews. I've also found an amazing website that has the extra classes and races from the full version of Pathfinder converted to work with Beginner Box rules:
http://edowarsblog.wordpress.com/downloads/
Which I think will help the people transition even better from Beginner Box rules to full-fat. Plan is to transition if they're still enjoying things after Fangs from the Past, and dive into Rise of the Runelords.
That said, I honestly think in many ways the Beginner Box ruleset would be a better choice if it was more fully fleshed out to reach level 20. Much as I enjoy the DnD3x style that most d20 games chose to employ, I cannot deny it has a lot in it that probably does not need to be in it, and often that gets in the way of the core of the game.
krypt0nian
Banned
Heads up, minilovers. As per a huge sign at Gencon, the 2nd Reaper BONES kickstarter is going up this Autumn!
FLYER
FLYER
Woo! I already have more miniatures from them than I know what to do with!
I've been running Rise of the Runelords with my group for the past X months. It is a pretty fun campaign to run. We're in the haunted house segment in Act 2 right now and it is just great.
I've been running Rise of the Runelords with my group for the past X months. It is a pretty fun campaign to run. We're in the haunted house segment in Act 2 right now and it is just great.
fallengorn
Bitches love smiley faces
Apparently, the Fate Core rulebook and Accelerated edition are currently pay-what-you-will. Pretty cool: http://www.evilhat.com/home/fate-core-downloads/
krypt0nian
Banned
Really worth owning. I'm amazed at the quality of the FATE core book overall. Such a fantastic time to buy new tabletop RPGs!
How is FATE? Quite intrigued by the notion of a generic RPG system (which I suppose at its core D20 is, though FATE seems much more streamlined and open). Obviously its strength is likely its broad range of applications, but then how does it fare on a specific setting/style basis?
Are people preferring Core or Accelerated?
Are people preferring Core or Accelerated?
fallengorn
Bitches love smiley faces
FATE is fantastic. I'm currently in a FATE game and coming off of 4E D&D, it's a breath of fresh air. It's fairly easy to mod it to your setting or style. The system focuses on character traits/aspects, so a lot of flavor is introduced there. You can also modify the skill list to what you need or add in extras.
Accelerated is just the abridged version of the core rulset. I haven't read it, but there shouldn't be that much difference between the two.
Accelerated is just the abridged version of the core rulset. I haven't read it, but there shouldn't be that much difference between the two.
CornBurrito
Member
You can do any setting. Not with the default skills mind you, but the game stresses about thirty different times that the basic skills listed in Core are to get your brain working and that you are encouraged to create your own skills and stunts (think DND style feats). The game even gives recommendations for how to lower or raise the default skill caps to make the characters more or less fantastical. The only thing FATE is bad at is when you want the player characters to fail as much as possible and look like incompetent shmucks while the DMPC solves all the main problems and gets all the plot moving (like my DND DM from last semester!)
I haven't had a game of FATE but I really want to. Too fucking bad I go to a school where the only people who play PnP play DND (3.5e and 4e), a system I have grown to hate due to a combination of its own problems, and the fuck awful houserules used by the groups here.
Does anyone else think that DND (3.5e) gets more love than it deserves? I struggle to see why people like the system, at least the core system. Perhaps with splatbooks and competent house rules it actually manages to be a decent game, but at that point why not go with a different system?
This sounds like a very good thing. GM might as well write a story instead of wasting everyone's time.
Yep. I can understand people reverting back to it if they tried 4e and it didn't appeal to them or moving to Pathfinder for essentially the same experience with current product support.
I do think it gets painted as something far better than it actually is. Game design has come a long way since then (10 years of progress tends to do that) and has brought with it many worthwhile alternatives. It's a shame that many aren't willing to look outside of what is already familiar.
Well, 3.x DND and its derivatives have a nice ludological feel about them. The ruleset fits the thematic workings of the setting, which is one reason why very few games other than DnD-types that used D20 as their core felt right.
Which is something I do wonder about FATE and other generics - with a ruleset as broad as possible, are you losing that "the rules really fit the theme" feeling a tailored ruleset can give?
Like, I understand Cyberpunk 2020 is woefully obtuse at times in its rules, but they feel appropriate and 'right' given the theme and setting.
Which is something I do wonder about FATE and other generics - with a ruleset as broad as possible, are you losing that "the rules really fit the theme" feeling a tailored ruleset can give?
Like, I understand Cyberpunk 2020 is woefully obtuse at times in its rules, but they feel appropriate and 'right' given the theme and setting.
CornBurrito
Member
I'm not sure what you mean. You can easily do a DND style sword and sorcery type game using Fate. The game encourages you to pick the skills, stunts, and extras. All of which you can tailor to fit the theme of the game. I suppose it takes a bit more work than just using the premade DND 3.5e for a sword and sorcery game, but I don't think it is that hard to do honestly.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
It does, including its derivative Pathfinder. Don't get me wrong, I like Pathfinder (and SAGA). But, it (and SAGA) still has the same wonky SRD underpinnings of 3E/3.5E, and you have to accept that going in.
The problem is that a lot of folks don't really have the time or inclination to take something like FATE or even earlier "meta-systems" like GURPS and turn it into something that fits what they're going for. So, we end up going with things that someone else spent a lot of time working with.
I can also do a Warhammer, 40k, or cyberpunk game with 3.5 if I file off serial numbers for while. But, as noted above... that takes time and inclination.
As with any game, it all comes down to the story that the table wants to experience. Once you know this, you can look at the system and ask "does this support the things that this story should be about?" If the answer is 'yes', then it is a no-brainer to use it to make this happen in the flavour of your choice.
The answer might be 'almost' or 'not entirely' and with some tweaks, additions or whatever, this can be made to work very well. You can look at the majority of games using the Fate system and see that they do differ; each one is not the same game with different art and renamed abilities, they bring something new and different to the table to suit what the game is about. Sometimes the effort to bring the game into a workable state is more trouble than people are willing to put in, and that's fine. Other times if its foreseeable that doing so can bring about the game you and your group has always wanted to experience, then that's great. Fate is rather flexible, but is far from suitable for everything and this should not be expected.
Many times the answer to the question will be 'no'. The easy and obvious solution here is to look elsewhere. Forcing the issue will only end up with a system that does not support the theme and the result will be poor. D20 is rather limited in scope and that's why not much fits its workings. It could be argued that it doesn't even do what it claims to very well.
Essentially, the problem stems from when people look at a system and try to bend it into a shape that it wasn't designed for. If it's approached from a different angle by looking for the shape you want and finding the correct one or something very similar, then you're more likely to come up with something more suitable.
A non-generic system I'll point to that has been adapted to multiple genres and story types is Apocalypse World. Hacking was encouraged and some advice on how to do so was provided in the book. Doing so is not easy and can take quite a bit of work to get it right, but boy does it shine when everything comes together. A game set in a world where resources are scarce and is unsurprisingly filled with sex and violence has produced the following:
- Dungeon World - Traditional fantasy
- Monster of the Week - Investigating mysteries and stopping the weirdness behind it
- Monsterhearts - Teen monster drama
- Sagas of the Icelanders - Norse settlers in Iceland
- tremulus - Lovecraftian horror investigation
TL;DR - If the system enables a story or genre to come to life at the table, then it's a good fit. Whether or not a system works is largely dependent on the interests of your table.
It's not about difficulty or if the rules allow a setting, but if the ruleset enhances a setting. There is thematic worth to certain rule mechanics. Ludological design feeds into narrative design.
You could simulate a fight between gods using 3.5e for example, but that doesn't mean it'd feel lydologically appropriate to do so, as the the rules are thematically geared to represent powerful mortals.
Riposte
Member
A heavily house-ruled 3.5 (or Pathfinder) that uses splatbook may be preferred to any other system, so I don't see the point of suddenly switching to something completely different like FATE. 3.5 lends itself to that kind of customization, so it makes sense. I mean 3.5 doesn't get really stupid until somewhere in the last 8-12 levels and that is not going to be a problem at all unless you are in the last 8-12 levels (which is most campaigns I take it).
Personally, a system like FATE, outside some lone mechanics, is uninteresting to me. I like a well-defined ruleset that outlines interaction with the game world, so as to give it weight. Doesn't hurt to have a more elegant ruleset, but I'd like to avoid "ass-pulling" as a central theme.
If I was going to play FATE (probably Stands of FATE), I would also prefer using a heavily modified version... so what's the point? I don't think there is a system I would play as is, unless just so I can say I've played that system as is.
Personally, a system like FATE, outside some lone mechanics, is uninteresting to me. I like a well-defined ruleset that outlines interaction with the game world, so as to give it weight. Doesn't hurt to have a more elegant ruleset, but I'd like to avoid "ass-pulling" as a central theme.
If I was going to play FATE (probably Stands of FATE), I would also prefer using a heavily modified version... so what's the point? I don't think there is a system I would play as is, unless just so I can say I've played that system as is.
krypt0nian
Banned
I play tons of systems. But I always come back to Pathfinder. Especially given the amazing support it gets, and the lengths that their customer service dept have gone for me in the past.
And I am hopelessly in love with their setting, Golarion and I haven't said that since Forgotten Realms pre-Spellplague.
And I am hopelessly in love with their setting, Golarion and I haven't said that since Forgotten Realms pre-Spellplague.
This, I don't get. If you haven't played a system as-is, how do you know what does and doesn't work? If an adjustment is made, what would you base the degree of change upon?
Playtests happen so designers can see if things are working as intended and make refinements as needed based on the feedback provided. If they were able to just look at the text and see what the problem was, playtests wouldn't be necessary.
The phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. A good thing to keep in mind especially if you don't know for sure if it's broken in the first place and therefore cannot know how to fix it.
Held my second Pathfinder Beginner Box session. One player had to drop out, and another player joined, so I decided to run the other two Bash modules rather than starting an adventure path. Each Bash module is meant to only take one hour tops (and typically much less), and introduce/explore core mechanics.
This one module ended up taking two hours.
The core of the module boils down to the above room. The runes are columns in a deep pit. They work like this:
Simple enough for a trap that isn't a basic Disable Device check. But my players spent ages agonising over this, doing things that I hadn't anticipated, though ultimately not affecting the trap as per the rules the module describes. They threw rocks onto the column in case it was a weight trap, they used detect magic (I could tell them there was magic there, of course, but that's about it). They used Knowledge History and Knowledge Arcana to try and read the runes, rolling very high numbers (I on the spot made up that the runes just seemed to be letters of an alphabet, arranged in no meaningful order).
Ultimately, despite coming close they never triggered the trap in full, but it really surprised me how something with what on paper seemed to follow simple rules became this time-swallowing endeavour by the players. And that's great - they demonstrated a capacity for creative thinking and problem solving, going beyond using dice rolls and into actual roleplaying. Where as last week they asked me "what should we do?", they were now asking each other the same question, and strategising.
... it just meant that rather than getting two modules in, we only got one! Though from my point of view that is an upside - less prep needed for next week. I'll just expand it a little by throwing in an extra encounter and more roleplay information to make it last an entire session.
This one module ended up taking two hours.
The core of the module boils down to the above room. The runes are columns in a deep pit. They work like this:
When a player steps on a column, the rune glows yellow. The next time a player steps on that same column, the rune glows orange. The third time, the rune glows red, the column judders and then falls. At this point the players can make an Acrobatics check to jump off the column before it falls, and failing that must make a Reflex save to avoid falling off the column and taking damage.
Simple enough for a trap that isn't a basic Disable Device check. But my players spent ages agonising over this, doing things that I hadn't anticipated, though ultimately not affecting the trap as per the rules the module describes. They threw rocks onto the column in case it was a weight trap, they used detect magic (I could tell them there was magic there, of course, but that's about it). They used Knowledge History and Knowledge Arcana to try and read the runes, rolling very high numbers (I on the spot made up that the runes just seemed to be letters of an alphabet, arranged in no meaningful order).
Ultimately, despite coming close they never triggered the trap in full, but it really surprised me how something with what on paper seemed to follow simple rules became this time-swallowing endeavour by the players. And that's great - they demonstrated a capacity for creative thinking and problem solving, going beyond using dice rolls and into actual roleplaying. Where as last week they asked me "what should we do?", they were now asking each other the same question, and strategising.
... it just meant that rather than getting two modules in, we only got one! Though from my point of view that is an upside - less prep needed for next week. I'll just expand it a little by throwing in an extra encounter and more roleplay information to make it last an entire session.
CornBurrito
Member
Gee it is almost like my post mentioned 3.5e without splatbooks and heavy modification with competent house rules. That's all anyone on my college campus seems to play. No splatbooks (or very few are allowed), and the only houserules are ones that actively hurt the player characters (critical failure on skill rolls).
As for you disliking Fate, different strokes for different folks I guess. I personally love the system, and am not too big a fan of DND. I enjoy Fate's aspect system the most, and Fate points in general. I also like its heavy customizability. DND is customizable no doubt, but the fact that it has rigid rules by default seems to encourage new DMs and players to stick with those rigid rules. Oh and Fate handles grappling better than DND, and combat better than DND in my opinion.
And I have to disagree about DND not getting stupid until the last 8-12 levels. It is stupid from level 1. Druids already outclass fighters at level 1, because a wolf or riding dog will be a better combatant than a level 1 fighter. With proper spell and feat selection, this continues further and further. Also if doing Point Buy or random rolling some classes are screwed over. And so many fucking people do Point Buy/random roll. The Wizard at most needs Int/Con, while the Paladin has abilities that key off Charisma, but he needs Strength and Con to fight. And don't his spells key off wisdom?
krypt0nian
Banned
Wow gaming system wars. How enlightening.
Like what you like and play what you play. Stop being a huge fucking dick about it.
Like what you like and play what you play. Stop being a huge fucking dick about it.
KittenMaster
Member
I think you can get away with focusing on Strength & Con more than Charisma because Smite Evil's damage and uses per day are based on level. Charisma is definitely a runner up stat though, and they don't get very many spells per day to begin with (along with a spell list that's mostly supplementary even compared to their Charisma-based abilities).
One thing with Fate is that it encourages interesting roleplay through the aspect system and the Fate point economy. Unlike the systems where people take disadvantages (where they are often not used other than at chargen) to improve other character traits, Fate encourages bad things to happen to your character in play as a result of who/what/how they are. It is interesting and creates a cool narrative where a player lets their character succumb to something that fits in order to cash it in as a benefit later on.
This point economy is easily transplanted to many other systems for a similar effect. While it won't be tied to any other mechanics, it can still add a little extra something. I think it can also help people see how a character stumbling and failing in certain ways is interesting and empowering. With the right attitude, players will end up volunteering their character's head on the chopping block (so to speak) to really spice things up, and more heads coming up with ideas makes for great gaming.
Who can think of a great story where a main character started out great and only became better, where they always succeeded at everything they wanted and nothing bad ever happened to them? I can't. Unfortunate events shape characters lives, create their adversaries or villains that people love to hate. Without these things, it can just be a circle-jerk of triumph with moustache-twirling villains. Obviously there is a spectrum between these two things, but a game that has mechanics to encourage one is more likely to have it than one that doesn't.
CornBurrito
Member
I dont see where I was a huge fucking dick,
This is the last time I ask a question about how specific rule design can enhance a specific theme/setting
It's an interesting question and one that is worth discussing, because it matters and is important. I don't mean to be abrasive or combative in my posts and I hope it didn't come across as such. It has been noted that I don't like D&D previously and why and so I don't go into that any further, nor do I have it colour my opinion because it is not relevant to it. If others enjoy playing a particular game, who is anyone to say that they are wrong?
To quote something I heard Kira Scott say last week where she mentioned something from the fetish community which says "your kink is not my kink, but your kink is okay". Her parallel with gaming was "D&D is not my kink, but D&D is okay". It's accepting and inclusive because it should be, if it's fun for someone else and they're not hurting anyone then that's perfectly fine.
One thing that is worth mentioning is Jared Sorensen's Big Three Questions. These are aimed at game designers, but seeing what they're about also explains why 'system matters' when you play a game. They are designed to manipulate behaviour for a specific result and this is the most important aspect and one reason why people pay money for a game. Now, I have ripped this right from a very old blog post of his that was bringing back already older content, so this is not a new concept and can be seen in context here.
--------------------
Game Elements
Die mechanics and task resolution is the meat and drink of the amateur game designer. Go to any discussion board and check out the game design threads. The majority of them are going to sound like this:
"Should I use die pools in my game?"
"I'm thinking of going with a combination of percentile dice and use polyhedra for damage."
"Should I use a roll-over or a roll-under system?"
"How can I make my game more lethal?"
All this is fine and good and warrants some thought, but most people seem to start out with these questions in mind rather than what I consider to be the real issues at hand. Don't confuse Game Elements with Game Systems. And don't confuse Game Systems with Rules.
Game Elements: dice, miniatures, character sheets, character creation rules, spell lists...in short, everything in the game. Even GM's and players! Note that a Game System is just another element of the game.
Game Systems: a laid-out set of rules on how game elements interact with a complement one another. The System is not the The Rules. The Rules tell you how to play the game...how to use the various systems in the game.
The First Law of RPG Design (formerly known as "Ebert's First Law" as applied to games rather than film)
"A game is not about what it is about, but how it is about it."
The Big Three Questions
The Big Three Questions all pertain to the First Law and all contribute to the focus of the game before pen is even set to paper. If you can't answer these three questions, then your game is not going to turn out well.
WHAT IS YOUR GAME ABOUT?
If you write a D&D clone, your game is not about "adventuring in a medieval fantasy world." Your game is about characters advancing in efficacy in order to meet greater and greater challenges. Do not confuse the genre, setting or color details with what's most important: the premise and structure of the game.
HOW DOES IT GO ABOUT THAT?
If you're designing that D&D clone and you put in a lifepath system as part of character creation, what does that accomplish? In order to fufill the requirements set my the first question, you must "put your money where your mouth is" with the discrete game elements. If that lifepath is purely cosmetic and doesn't affect the character's abilities or the game mechanics, then why is it in there?
WHAT BEHAVIORS DOES IT REWARD AND/OR ENCOURAGE?
The obvious game element to focus on as a "reward" is some kind of character advancement system. But this can go the other way as well; what behaviors does the game punish and/or discourage? If the ultimate goal of Call of Cthulhu is to die or go insane, does the game encourage this? Do insane characters get special abilities? Or is running/fighting rewarded and encouraged (as it is in Dungeons & Dragons)?
The Rule of Jared (coined by Kirt "Loki" Dankmyer)
Only roll the dice when it's important.
The Mearls Paradox
A roleplaying game that is "complete" (meaning no further explanation, rules or interpretation is required) is not a roleplaying game at all.
Jared's Rule of Combat
Fight scenes have to be exciting. Combat doesn't have to be.
If you want to play a game that encourages interesting fight scenes, play a game that encourages interesting fight scenes. Either one emphasizing style over tactics (octaNe, Wushu) or one where "a fight" is interesting because the mechanics make you feel engaged (Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel).
If physical conflict is just an obstacle to be overcome somehow (Dungeons & Dragons), then the emphasis is in overcoming that obstacle and finding out what lies beyond it -- be it temporal reward (treasure, XP's, magic items) or a story-related reward (you resuce the princess or vanquish the Lich Lord). Combat is seen as a challenge, a kind of visceral puzzle, one that rewards strategic thinking and problem solving ability. Play the game you want to play!
CornBurrito
Member
Someone should have told my last DM this. The fucker made me roll a spot check to see two people in front of me. Literally not 5 feet away from my face. The only two people in an empty prison.
Y'know what? I apologize for my rant about DND. I'm sure it is probably a lovely system for certain game types when you dont have a fucking awful DM. I think I'm letting my awful experiences cloud my judgement.
Q. Does anyone know DND houserules for things like throwing sand in the enemies' eyes? Or lighting a fire to block off a path? My last DM did not let us do stuff that because apparently he couldn't find any game mechanics in the core (d20srd website) that could handle that. I think we were allowed to set things on fire but that only did like... 1d4 damage if they were in the square and like 3 turns after or so, and at higher levels that meant kind of nothing. It sure annoyed the hell out of our rogue. Hell, he didn't even let our rogue have poisons
So Sandpoint (town in Pathfinder's canon campaign setting) is consuming my life. As it'll be the home base for my players for the foreseeable future, I wanted to create a quick reference sheet or two with the major locations, important NPCs etc.
It has now morphed into a (so far) 10 page monstrosity, with pages of random encounters, details of every building of note on every street, the full backstories and motivations of all major NPCs, plus a few vague plot-hooks just in case the players make a decision that goes against my adventure plans and I need something in a pinch.
The more I add, the more I feel like I could further add.
And so now I'll need to create a summary reference sheet for my reference sheets.
Will be interesting to see if this actually ends up creating a more 'alive' location when I end the hand-holding training period of the new players and just let them loose.
DnD/Pathfinder/Whatever is like every other RPG - if there's no specific rule for an action, you just make a roll on a skill that would best suit the proposed player action, or failing that, roll against an ability like dexterity. No need to construct some specific house rules.
In that specific sand-in-eyes example, I'd just ask the PC to make a ranged attack check (with a -4 penalty as sand is an improvised weapon), then if successful just apply the "blinded" condition for a round (zero sight), then the "dazzled" condition for 1d4 rounds after that (-1 to attack rolls and sight-based checks).
I mean, the rules are there to enable the creativity of the GM and the Players, not the other way around.
Also, was your GM actively checking the SRD for something like that? I'd understand if it was a huge action with lasting repurcussions, but for something small like that I don't think the GM should fret enough to double check the rules. Just go for whatever makes sense at the time, then clarify the rules after that session, informing the players if you made a mistake.
Honestly, at least once a session I probably get at least one rule wrong in some small way, but I don't care because because my job is to make sure the player roleplaying and fun/tension keeps going. So long as it makes sense and seems fair to everyone at the time, a little rules error shouldn't be a problem.
It has now morphed into a (so far) 10 page monstrosity, with pages of random encounters, details of every building of note on every street, the full backstories and motivations of all major NPCs, plus a few vague plot-hooks just in case the players make a decision that goes against my adventure plans and I need something in a pinch.
The more I add, the more I feel like I could further add.
And so now I'll need to create a summary reference sheet for my reference sheets.
Will be interesting to see if this actually ends up creating a more 'alive' location when I end the hand-holding training period of the new players and just let them loose.
Nah it's cool. I was just surprised at the near-war that just broke out! In many ways I'm glad to only have a beginner's experience with PnP RPGs!
That's stupid.Q. Does anyone know DND houserules for things like throwing sand in the enemies' eyes? Or lighting a fire to block off a path? My last DM did not let us do stuff that because apparently he couldn't find any game mechanics in the core (d20srd website) that could handle that. I think we were allowed to set things on fire but that only did like... 1d4 damage if they were in the square and like 3 turns after or so, and at higher levels that meant kind of nothing. It sure annoyed the hell out of our rogue. Hell, he didn't even let our rogue have poisons
DnD/Pathfinder/Whatever is like every other RPG - if there's no specific rule for an action, you just make a roll on a skill that would best suit the proposed player action, or failing that, roll against an ability like dexterity. No need to construct some specific house rules.
In that specific sand-in-eyes example, I'd just ask the PC to make a ranged attack check (with a -4 penalty as sand is an improvised weapon), then if successful just apply the "blinded" condition for a round (zero sight), then the "dazzled" condition for 1d4 rounds after that (-1 to attack rolls and sight-based checks).
I mean, the rules are there to enable the creativity of the GM and the Players, not the other way around.
Also, was your GM actively checking the SRD for something like that? I'd understand if it was a huge action with lasting repurcussions, but for something small like that I don't think the GM should fret enough to double check the rules. Just go for whatever makes sense at the time, then clarify the rules after that session, informing the players if you made a mistake.
Honestly, at least once a session I probably get at least one rule wrong in some small way, but I don't care because because my job is to make sure the player roleplaying and fun/tension keeps going. So long as it makes sense and seems fair to everyone at the time, a little rules error shouldn't be a problem.
CornBurrito
Member
Wut... DND has specific rules for specific actions like grappling though. Which is why my last DM was so adamant about sand throwing not being a legal action.
Your solution seems very... not good? Throwing sand in someone's eye is something any shmuck can do. I don't see why it should be at penalty of -4. It would hardly ever work in that case. And then if it does work the payoff doesn't seem that great. Like why would anyone use it?
And yes he was actively checking SRD for that. Oh and the rules are there to allow for creativity but it seems shortsighted to neglect that for some (poor) DMs the rules exist as more of a straight jacket. Limiting creativity more than aiding it. I wasn't allowed to play an entire character concept I wanted because I wanted to play a character with Paladin abilities without having to worship a specific deity.
Oh another problem? We had one player who played an acrobat turned monk. He was new to the game. In battle he spent 3 or so turns climbing a pillar to get really high up. Then he jumped down onto the enemy. What did the DM give him for those 3 turns spent climbing and getting in perfect position for a drop down assassination? His bonus for using the force of gravity to deliver a blow with more force than otherwise would be possible? +2 to hit. I've either had bad DM's or DND isn't good at rewarding actions that aren't "direct attack" "flank" "cast spell".
But there are no "illegal" actions in DnD per se - the various core rulebooks at various times advise you to not worry about being constrained by the rules or being 100% accurate. But I don't see what grappling has to do with sand in eyes? DnD isn't meant to have a rule for every action, it's meant to have rules for common actions. You are also advised to improvised based off most-applicable skills and abilities.
There's no specific rule for lifting a heavy object - instead, you make a strength roll to see if you pull it off.
As for "any old shmuck" - any old shmuck can also grab a chair leg and club someone, but it's an improvised weapon so standard is -4. Anything you're not trained to use (that includes your own fists) is a -4 "untrained weapon" penalty.
Don't think of it as "you are 4 worse than you should be" when using an improvised weapon, instead think "you are not as good as with the weapon you trained with". Unless the players have a roleplay reason why they're experts at flinging sand with accuracy (maybe they were street brawlers?), it's a -4 penalty to that roll.
But again, if that doesn't make sense, do something different.
CornBurrito
Member
Yeah I can see how there are no "illegal actions" but I'm being honest when I say that none of the 3 DM's I've had thought that way. They thought the rules were the rules and things not covered by them were either illegal actions or things needing to be houserules "in the future."
As for the sand in eyes reasoning, ok I can see that. But in 3.5e at least a -4 penalty is insane. My group was fighting monsters with high enough AC that the party Fighter was missing on rolls of 19 (14 roll + 4 str modifier + 1 bard buff). A -4 penalty would mean that nobody would ever hit. Which again means that actions that aren't direct attacks, moving to flank, or spells aren't rewarded well. It's my personal gripe with the game, based on my experience with it.
I'd change my tune if I had a DM who didn't follow the rules as written as a rigid sacred script never to be altered, but that isn't the case. Part of the reason I wanted to move to a more open "rules light" or "asspull" system as Riposte called it was because of these complaints.
My personal approach is only to create house-rules when something is a reoccuring problem, or I see an issue with the game I want to fix.
For example, "Swim" as a skill is fucking stupid. Either you can swim or you can't, and that would be decided entirely by your character history, not your training. Also, swim as a class skill is even worse - why should a fighter automatically be better at swimming than a wizard? What if the fighter grew up in a desert and the wizard in a coastal town?
So in my games, if you character history means your character can swim, you get 5 skill ranks in swim for free, which is the smallest amount needed to be able to swim in choppy waters when undistracted if taking 10, effectively allowing us to ignore the swim skill except in storms or something, where dice rolls would add a wonderful sense of tension as the character fight to keep from drowning.
If you have a character history reason why your character should be an especially strong swimmer, then for the cost of one skill rank I allow you to make it into a class skill, giving you that +3 bonus.
You can't carry any heavy objects when swimming, else you sink.
It can indeed be a problem with d20 systems, but can I ask what the monster in question was? Outside of you fighting a monster way beyond your power level, I can only imagine a 19 not hitting if the monster specifically had physical resistances, in which case your spellcasters should be buffing the fighter and debuffing the monster.
If the spellcasters don't have those sorts of abilities, the GM shouldn't have used the monster in the first place.
further re: the sand, in the case of a monster with such a high AC, I'd adjust the DC of the sand blindness roll to make it easier (and then the sand can function as the debuff I mentioned). Player creativity when facing difficult odds should always be given a fair chance for success, in my opinion.
Part of the reason d20 systems appeal to me is what I was trying to hint at earlier - for some reason (and I lack the vocabulary to explain why) the rules feel 'correct' for an epic dungeon-crawling game. It enhances the theme.
d20 can and has been modified to fit various other themes, but it never works, save for a few shining examples such as d20 Modern and the original Game of Thrones RPG. For a Dungeons and Dragons themed game, d20 just fits beautifully, its various flaws and all.
CornBurrito
Member
1. Swim as a skill isn't dumb I don't think. Micheal Phelps can certainly outswim me any day and I can swim... But yeah I never got class skills for shit like spot/listen/swim. One DM did away with class skills, but that hurts the skill monkey classes slightly.
2. I don't see a problem with carrying heavy stuff while swimming. DND is a fantastical setting. Can't even mundane DND people already do things not physically possible in real life at level 1?
3. That particular enemy was either an orc, a human, or a homebrewed water elemental. I think the latter. But more often than not our Fighter was the only one able to hit the majority of enemies. And even then only on a 12 dice roll with flanking, charging, and two handed bonus. So higher than 50% miss chance. The party monk couldn't hit shit until the DM gave her (his girlfriend) a homebrew werewolf form. And me (bard) couldn't hit much of anything and my spells happened to fail against enemies with a will save of 1 like 80% of the time. Even though that was a statistical anomaly. (This DM rolled in secret and openly dislikes me).
We only had a group of three. There were no dedicated spellcasters. I was a bard but I couldn't buff that much. And then the bard died to a random critical hit so we had no spellcaster for awhile until I played a wizard focused in Conjuration. And my battlefield control spells mostly didn't work because of the DM magic will saves.
Also what rules specifically (give examples) do you think make DND perfect for dungeon crawling? I'm curious because the only thing I see that makes it seem particularly dungeony is the monster compendium and the lack of modern items but that doesn't seem to be what you mean.
Also how would you have handled the example I gave about the monk who spent 3 turns climbing a tall pillar for a drop down stab attack?
KittenMaster
Member
Paladins aren't required to worship a diety, as far as I can tell, they're just forbidden from breaking conduct and performing evil acts.
What is your Fighter's BAB and why isn't it included in that roll? You're eventually expected to be able to hit with -5 and -10 penalties from successive attacks from high BAB.
What is your Fighter's BAB and why isn't it included in that roll? You're eventually expected to be able to hit with -5 and -10 penalties from successive attacks from high BAB.
Someone should have told my last DM this. The fucker made me roll a spot check to see two people in front of me. Literally not 5 feet away from my face. The only two people in an empty prison.
Y'know what? I apologize for my rant about DND. I'm sure it is probably a lovely system for certain game types when you dont have a fucking awful DM. I think I'm letting my awful experiences cloud my judgement.
Q. Does anyone know DND houserules for things like throwing sand in the enemies' eyes? Or lighting a fire to block off a path? My last DM did not let us do stuff that because apparently he couldn't find any game mechanics in the core (d20srd website) that could handle that. I think we were allowed to set things on fire but that only did like... 1d4 damage if they were in the square and like 3 turns after or so, and at higher levels that meant kind of nothing. It sure annoyed the hell out of our rogue. Hell, he didn't even let our rogue have poisons
One thing that indie RPGs do well is explain when to roll the dice. This information would be useful in more popular systems to prevent absurd circumstances arising, much like you have experienced. If failure would be an interesting outcome then going to the dice is generally fine; if it stops the game dead, then leave those uncaring polyhedrons out of it.
I don't know of any popular houserules for the improvised actions you've mentioned, but they're pretty simple to whip up. Throwing sand in the enemies eyes would require them to be close enough for it to be effective, which is a judgement call depending on the circumstances. There are a few ways it could be handled, but my pick would be to just let them do it as a quick/minor action, and the effect of the sand is determined by the attack roll they use for their standard action. If they hit, the enemy is blinded until the end of the players next turn with a negative modifier to their attack and AC, and on a miss, save ends. If the player really wants to succeed they can with the same hit effects, but can only make a melee basic attack. That sounds pretty fair.
As for fire, it would be dependent on what was set alight as to the effect. If the players are coming up with cool ideas, you make it something impressive. If it's pretty standard-fare then the effects aren't as great. Ground items on fire could be difficult terrain and damage is taken if anyone ends their turn in it and half-damage they're if next to it, maybe the equivalent to fall damage, so d10?
I'd say let the players add some details of their own. If they ask about something, maybe turn it around on them: "I don't know, you tell me" or something to that effect. They might add something cool or interesting and it can help them feel a part of the world because they get to create some of it. You get to save yourself some effort and get the players invested, a win for everyone.
I saw it a little differently and not nearly as heated as others may have. Maybe that's just me and my particular perspective.
Some GMs are like that, my last one was rather inflexible on a lot of things - rules as written and all that stuff. It's stifling and frustrating when you want to do things that are clearly cool and not game-breaking at all and the response is "no". There is no good reason for it. I can understand new GMs being a bit more rigid as they are finding their feet, but outside of that it's nigh inexcusable. We play these games because of the freedom of choice they offer and the impact our characters can have on the world they inhabit. If we were after a linear narrative with a rigid structure on our abilities, we have video games for that.
Using your above example, the player clearly wanted to do something cool as a result of his climbing. He sacrificed 3 of his turns to set it up, 3 turns which could have been spent doing damage. If it all culminates in the 4th turn payoff being nothing, then that's boring, depressing and uninteresting. Looking at it like that, there is no great loss giving him a great big bonus to make it happen. The GM could have at least given a bigger attack modifier and the monk could deal fall damage as a bonus on top; the guy used to be an acrobat, he knows how to land on a net to avoid death so he could surely deliver death from above. That's at the absolute minimum, if you were playing Dungeon World, the enemy would've been dead. Why? Because it's cool and appropriate.
CornBurrito
Member
Ah then that was a house rule. The DM argued that their powers were holy in nature or some such garbage, so we needed a deity much like clerics.
Fighter was at level 7 so BAB of 7. Though they took off I think 5 for power attack. This was 2 or so months ago so I probably have some details fucked up. I just remember clearly her getting a 14 on the dice and somehow missing. I'm pretty sure it was a mini "boss" fight.
I'll have to check that system out. Dungeon World already sounds cool. I know in Fate that you would handle it with Create an Advantage (1 turn) and then invoke that advantage for some nice +2s. If you do well enough on the Create an Advantage you could get +4-+6. And then a Fate Point to invoke your acrobat aspect for a +6-+8... enemy would die. Or take a moderate consequence and even a mild.
I'm actually smiling because I almost wrote a paragraph about Olympic athletes earlier...
Yes, Michael Phelps would be an example of an individual with probably 15 skill ranks in swim who also took it as a class skill or something ridiculous. But that's because he had a singular devotion to swimming his entire life. He's a trained athlete.
The players, by comparison, aren't Olympic athletes. They're dungeoneers (fighters). They're scholars (wizards). They're thieves (rogues). They're magical musicians (bards). They're priests for their religion (clerics). And so on. In the context of the theme and setting, it is unlikely any of the PCs have anything other than "average to very good" ability in swimming. They're triathletes, if anything.
If a player wishes to emphasise swimming past the 5-rank+class skill "very good" I've suggested to them then they're free to, but it'll be at extra skill rank cost to them, representing the idea that they had a bizarre fixation on swimming during their lives that meant they had less time for reading history or learning to perform or training in swinging a sword.
I just don't think in the way the rules are designed it makes sense to force the players to take skill ranks in an ability that someone might have an above-average degree of competency in without any special training. Especially when the skill doesn't come up anywhere near as much as others.
It's just a suspension of disbelief thing. We can buying into people summoning fireballs or singing songs so beautiful they make violent enemies stop everything to listen mid-combat, as that fits the lore and setting of the world we're in. We can't buy into the idea that someone is able to swim at all while in full plate-mail.
That, and having to remove heavy equipment before swimming adds to the "roleplaying" element of the game. It's a detail that helps players better get into the mindset of having to become their character.
And I saw "we" to represent my group, mind. I did discuss this with my players ahead of time to let them know my thoughts on Swim, and they thought my house rule suggestion was a good idea. Other groups would probably want to do it differently, which is fine. That's the strength tabletop gaming - you have the freedom to modify the system if you so choose. In particularly well-designed games like Pathfinder, modifying certain aspects here and there shouldn't interfere with the flavour.
Then I would say this was a case of your GM fucking up somewhat. GMs are meant to provide encounters suitable to the party of players: enough to challenge without making it near-impossible. What you're describing simply does not sound very fun at all, and I'm a great believer in it's a GM role to make sure everyone is having fun.
I can't! I seriously lack the analytical skills and vocabulary here, as I've never really taken the time to think about ludology and system design.
All I can say is that it just 'fits' for me. I know that is a cop-out answer, but it's not a question I feel capable of asking, especially when my experience with tabletop gaming is not as vast as that of others.
It's just something in the way the crunch is handled, the way the rules semi-force the players to act, the specific way these complex, tactical, real-time actions are being deconstructed to turns that works for me.
Well, in terms of "to hit", I think the +2 is fair. Gravity doesn't make someone more accurate. If anything, that fall would make him inaccurate. If Armour Class represents a combination of armour's ability to absorb damage and the target to use their dexterity to parry and dodge an attack, I don't think a falling attack like that makes someone much more capable of beating the Armour Class. +2 seems fair; if anything, generous.
However, I would instead interpret the situation as giving extra damage. The drop from above doesn't make him more likely to hit, but the force of gravity does make any hit he lands connect with more force. Given that the player had spent three turns trying to achieve this, I think I'd be most likely to say their attack if successful was automatically a crit or something.
I don't know. Could be there's something in the rulebook to handle such a situation. I'd then be sure to research and discuss it with my players before the next time we got together and played.
Interesting idea, but not one I think fits my role as so far understood by myself or the players. There's a pretty strong breakdown so far of the GM presenting the world variables, and the players reacting to them. I don't think either the players or I have even considered the notion of the players adding to the variables in any way other than through their character's actions.
It's something I'll consider for the future, but it's definitely something I'd need to discuss with my players upfront first.
This is something I was also trying to articulate but failing to. "The player clearly wanted to do something cool". Absolutely. It's another degree of rewarding creativity, lateral thinking, and roleplaying their character well.
KittenMaster
Member
I see swim as more of a "how well can you not die in these great rapids" than "how well can you win the olympics" since the swim skill alone doesn't actually improve your swimming speed, it just checks to see if you can even move at all and stay above water. I can see the ability to handle rough and dangerous situations like that coming with being a Fighter.
Oh, sure. But then I think someone competent at swimming should be able to always stay afloat in anything up to rough (not stormy) conditions. Oxygen-breathing creatures naturally float, after all. So my players all get 5 free skill ranks, as the DC for staying afloat in rough conditions is 15. Now everyone can just take 10 when swimming in up to rough conditions so we don't have to roll dice every turn to determine if people good at swimming don't drown for some unknown reason.
The "roll high or drown" dice mechanic makes sense in stormy conditions or in river rapids, mind - you're actively fighting huge waves and strong currents there.
CornBurrito
Member
See I disagree here. They climbed high, they are an acrobat, and now they are in perfect position to catch the enemy unaware. If flanking is +2, catching the enemy totally unaware should be worth slightly more I think. I think I'd let the player treat the enemy as flat footed. Maybe I'm too influenced by anime and video games...
The problem with rewarding the player with a critical hit in that situation is that a critical hit is double damage. Remember they spent 3 turns climbing this tall pillar. Essentially they spent 3 turns to do less damage then if they had simply gone "I attack." *roll dice* 3 times and hit.
I guess the solution in that case should have been to not make climbing it take 3 turns?
edit: Turns out I may be able to GM a DND 3.5e game. I'll be able to test out all sorts of modifications and see how they work in practice.
Q. Does anyone know a tested method for balancing out the classes? Random roll for stats fucks up those that rely on multiple stats, and even point buy isn't fair. I was thinking of just letting players have: one 18, two 16, one at 14, one at 12, one at 10. Before racial bonuses/detriments. That might make them "too good" but it is a game for brand new players so I don't mind them being extremely competent in multiple stats.
ElectricThunder
Member
Randomly: Have All The Things that seem to make up the old Talislanta run of the lot of it
http://talislanta.com/?page_id=5
Bound to be of interest to some folks on here to poke about in an older and more obscure system/setting.
http://talislanta.com/?page_id=5
Bound to be of interest to some folks on here to poke about in an older and more obscure system/setting.
For a standard game, the numbers average out that you want the PCs at level one to have something like 75 total attribute points.
My method is to have everyone do the "roll 4d6, discard lowest" to generate six scores that they can assign to whichever abilities they want. Then they must either add points until they reach 74, or reduce points until they reach 76. This allows for a bit of luck/variance, without making any one PC feel like its unfairly powerful in comparison to the others.
CornBurrito
Member
I played in games with roll 4d6 discard lowest. I don't think it works well since it assumes all the classes are equally balanced in terms of what stats they need. A wizard only has one key stat really. A paladin two or three. A monk has far more. Random roll hurts the monk the most, the wizard the least.
I'm also not a fan of luck or variance for stats. I prefer point buy systems typically, but don't want to bother new players with that.
For experienced players that like to optimise builds and enjoy the crunch, point-buy is certainly the way forward. I personally avoid it for my current group because:
a) They're very inexperienced, so it's easier for them and I to say "put your highest score into this attribute" than to say "distribute the most points to this attribute"
b) As you can probably tell from my recent posts, I play loose with the rules when they interfere with roleplaying. Build optimisation doesn't have a place in that, really.
c) Rolling gives a more organic approach that feels like it's better replicating the luck of genetics in some super-abstract way. It avoid players having a "dump stat" or whatever. I don't care if it makes for more optimised play, a fighter that has lived through multiple encounters probably has more smarts about him than a that 7 in intelligence would suggest, you know?
But really that's just me. Having played a lot of Neverwinter Nights, I certainly can appreciate the strengths of a stat-pool system, and the appeals of customising that 'perfect' build within a set of strict guidelines.
CornBurrito
Member
Point buy leads to the same imbalance though. Most people give more points to lower tier classes to remedy this.
But again that is complicated. Hence why I wanted to give everyone 18, 16, 16, 14, 12, 10