Runequest Pirates of the Carribean

[atgxtg]

And they always have somthing else people find "wrong"

Just face it, no system is anything but a compromise.

True. But it all depends on what they compromise and if that is osmething the players can live with. For example, AD&D was firmely based upon defense being provided by armor, as opposed to skill and mobility. This made the game poorly suited for a swashbuklinng/pirate game, like what we are discussing here. THat was just something that AD&D wasn't designed to handle, so it did it poorly. 3E is a bit more flexible, however, and there are supplments that can make a lightly armored fighter a playable option.

THat being said, I pretty much agree with Enpeze here. D&D has multiple problems that I would want addressed before I'd want to use it. One of the major ones being the whole increasing XP/dimishing returns thing. AS the game runs now, you pretty much beeter have a plan for advacenment when you first create your character, and stick to it, despite if it is working out for you or not, as changing careeer paths can be difficult, with the rate that feats are accumiulated.

From the point of sophistication, flexibility and versitlity, D&D today isn't as advanced as RQ, DQ, HERO, or GURPS were back in the early 80s. Not surpring as the game didn't change much for over two decades.

 

[Finarvyn]

AD&D was firmely based upon defense being provided by armor, as opposed to skill and mobility. This made the game poorly suited for a swashbuklinng/pirate game, like what we are discussing here.

Not exactly true. The concept of a "hit point" was never intended to be just some guy shrugging off hits. If you read Strategic Review articles from the 1970's you'll see that the "hit point" included the idea that a high level character could make a solid hit into a glancing blow. Thus, by awarding more hit points at higher levels, the D&D system is taking skill into account. As far as mobility goes some versions of D&D allow for DEX to modify AC, which I believe would be accounting for mobility. What D&D does not do is put in a dodge or parry roll. Those things are assumed to be part of the "hit point" and are ignored to make the system more streamlined.

D&D has multiple problems that I would want addressed before I'd want to use it. One of the major ones being the whole increasing XP/dimishing returns thing. AS the game runs now, you pretty much better have a plan for advacenment when you first create your character, and stick to it, despite if it is working out for you or not, as changing careeer paths can be difficult, with the rate that feats are accumiulated.

I should have mentioned that my gaming roots go back to the "brown book" days of OD&D and I am not as familiar with the newer editions as I am the older. In the "good old days" the model was that of creativity and rules improvisation, and I never bothered with XP. My style has always been to set up an arc of adventures and then award levels. In the same vein, I don't use feats and the need to plan ahead isn't as significant -- characters gain a pretty standardized set of abilities as they gain levels.

So ... when I suggest that D&D can be used as a swashbuckling system, I guess I'm not entirely imagining the same game as when you hear that I suggest using D&D because we're not quite talking about the same edition. I should have been more clear on this, that's my error.

Rather than using the more complex 3E version of the D&D game, I would tend to simplify the rules to be more like Castles & Crusades (or maybe True20, which I have not yet played). This is what I do when I run my Mongoose d20 Conan campaign. I love the rulebooks but they're too heavy for my personal style of gaming.

The basic D&D rules mechanic works well in any style of campaign. The basic "attack vs. armor, then roll damage" is very simple and easy to use for modern, science fiction, ancient, or whatever era you like.

From the point of sophistication, flexibility and versitlity, D&D today isn't as advanced as RQ, DQ, HERO, or GURPS were back in the early 80s. Not surpring as the game didn't change much for over two decades.

Not entirely sure what you mean here. Certainly some of the games you mention had specific "new" elements a long time ago, but so did OD&D. If you look at the brown book supplements, you'll find things like hit location charts, hit points divided into various body parts, and other such things that vanished from the game only to be reinvented years later. Most of the "advancements" in RPGs were actually done by OD&D by around 1980.
* If you mean sophistication=complex, certainly other games are more complex than D&D.
* If you mean flexible=skills, certainly other games used skills long before D&D did because the level system is sort of a "skill template" and really skills and levels don't need to mix.
* If you mean versitile=more options, then any skill system will always be more versitile than any level system.

I'm not trying to pick a fight over this. I'm actually more curious in trying to see your point of view on the topic. I've played RQ back to the 1E version back in the old days and it's a nice game, but it does require more bookkeeping on the part of the players. In exchange it allows for more options for the players. (I own both 1E RuneQuest and the Avalon Hill 3E version and I prefer 1E over 3E.)

My personal preference has always been a level system over a skill system just because a level system tends to put players into roles within a party whereas a skill system tends to encourage everyone to try to be good at everything. Not a bad thing, but just not my style.

Having said all of this, I am really excited about the MRQ coming out in a few weeks and can't wait to buy a copy. 8)

 

[atgxtg]

Cool, I get to go over D&D stuff with someone who will know what I mean when I use wirds like Chainmail and Blackmoor!

Here we go:

Point 1: Yeah, the hit point were supposed to reflect parry, dodging, turning aside blows in the old swashbuckling style. More on that in a bit. Armor Class, however, was firmly based upon armor worn with a modifer for DEX. So if you were going to run a high seas type of camapign, where armor generally wasn't worn (in part for the sea but also due to firearms and thier ability to shoot through armor) the ACs are going to be rather high (in old D&D terms).This will leave defense alomost entirely in the terms of hit points.

Now as to the D&D model for using hit point as diverting, converting.,parrying blows-well, it just didn't work. Consider, A guy with 40 hit points get hit for 39 points and is down to 1 hp. According to the old DMG this was really just a minor wound, and it is only the blow that drives the guy down is the one that is a serious injury. So when our guy with 1 HP left takes a 2 point wound and goes down to -1, it is the 2 point wound that is the serious, life threatening one.

But then when it come time to heal, it takes more healing magic to restore the 39 "minior wound" hit point that the 2 "serious wound" hit points. Why? Because in the end, Hit Points are just hit points. All interchangable. If it were all minor wounds except the last, a cure minor wounds spell should be able to heal tohose 39 points.

I've seen some incredibly idotic tactics that D&Ders bring into other RPGs just because they worked in the past in D&D. I once worte a Morrow Project scenario that eliminated every group in the competion becuase they ALL charged the .50cal machine gun. Why? Because it works in D&D.

For a personal perspective I much perfer dealing with injures and wounds than hit points or damage. It is a lot more intereszssting, colorful, and exciting to deal with combatantats having a slash on thier arm, or desparalety trying to defend against an attack rathetr than just counting down HP. Old D&D combat is more for adding machines than humans.


Point 2) I don't believew that the basic roll vs AC system works well for any setting. It eveloped from a so-so wargame as a way to bring fantasy elements into medieval combat. As an RPG system it is lacking-in practically every area. This can be forgiven as it was the first RPG, and the designers didn't know much about what they were doing (the old rouge passing fighting-men on the combat charts being a prime example). EEverytihing in the game has it own specialized method of resolution, making the game a nightmare of differening mechanics. Want to hit something? Roll 1D20. Want to lift something? Roll 1D100. Want to listen to something? Roll 1D10. Want to ambush someone, roll some D6s, unless they are rangers -then roll D8s. THe system is a hodgepodge of spot rules written to cover things after the fact.

The only reason why the game seems easy is becuase practically every gamer had a copy of the rules and could read it at thier convience. But as a system, I'd put practically any of it major competiators ahead of it.

As far as versitlity-D&D isn't THe vast majoitty of settings for D&D invariably alter the setting to fit the D&D rules systems, rather than altering D&D to fit the setting.

Point 3) Sure D&D had supplements (offical and otherwise),a rticles and what nots that added skills, hit locations and lots of other stuff into the game. But that isn't to say that D&D orginated this stuff, only that people were looking at RPGs like RuneQuest and Traveller. Like I said, D&D is 20 years behind the times.

I prefer a skill system to a level system. I generally don't agree with your statment about skill system encounaging people to be good at everything. THe old "jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind.

I once spent a month wiping out the same group of semi-converted D&Ders becuase they didn't grasp that concept. In the adventures, ther was usually a point where they wanted someone to do a little sneaking around and scout out the enemy. Now, the group had (at least the first time) a skilled thief and a hunter, both of whom had very good stealth skills. But, when it came time to do the sneaking, the entire group would look at thier sheets, see Hide and Move Quielty skill scores, and roll for it. When 6 to 8 people all roll for something at 25%, someone is going to fail.

RQ actually encourages devoping ability in a few select skills. IF the players fighrure that out or nopt is another thing.
[/b][/i]

 

[Finarvyn]

Cool, I get to go over D&D stuff with someone who will know what I mean when I use words like Chainmail and Blackmoor!

Yep. Grew up on the stuff!

Now as to the D&D model for using hit point as diverting, converting, parrying blows-well, it just didn't work. Consider, A guy with 40 hit points get hit for 39 points and is down to 1 hp. According to the old DMG this was really just a minor wound, and it is only the blow that drives the guy down is the one that is a serious injury. So when our guy with 1 HP left takes a 2 point wound and goes down to -1, it is the 2 point wound that is the serious, life threatening one.

I suppose I might counter by the notion that this makes D&D that much more cinematic and swashbuckling. Indiana Jones (for example) seems to avoid major wounds for most of a battle, then perhaps it’s the bottle broken over his head that “does him in” at the end.

But then when it come time to heal, it takes more healing magic to restore the 39 "minor wound" hit point that the 2 "serious wound" hit points. Why?

Got me on that one. Healing is just dumb. I shattered my ankle a few years back and was totally non-weight-bearing for eight weeks. I suppose that this would imply that my leg had at least 7*8=56 hit points. Using Blackmoor’s hit location tables as a guide legs have 25% of the total hit points of the character, so I suppose that I must have at least 4*56=224 hit points. If I was a fighter with average luck in rolls (4.5 per hit die) then I would have nearly 50 hit dice. Hmmm.

As far as versatility-D&D isn't The vast majority of settings for D&D invariably alter the setting to fit the D&D rules systems, rather than altering D&D to fit the setting.

That’s certainly true, if you look at published game settings. My point was simply that the basic mechanic of D&D worked fine for me in a number of house-ruled settings, and this leads me to believe that it could work fine for published settings as well. I have used the basic D&D rules for ancient, modern, future, and all sorts of eras in between.

I prefer a skill system to a level system. I generally don't agree with your statement about skill system encouraging people to be good at everything. The old "jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind.

That’s exactly my frustration with skills. Every player seems to go for the jack of all trades character rather than specialize. Classes are automatic specialization.

I once spent a month wiping out the same group of semi-converted D&Ders because they didn't grasp that concept. In the adventures, there was usually a point where they wanted someone to do a little sneaking around and scout out the enemy. Now, the group had (at least the first time) a skilled thief and a hunter, both of whom had very good stealth skills. But, when it came time to do the sneaking, the entire group would look at their sheets, see Hide and Move Quietly skill scores, and roll for it. When 6 to 8 people all roll for something at 25%, someone is going to fail.

Exactly my point. With a class system, it’s obvious that the thief is “supposed” to do the sneaking. With a skill system everyone says “what the heck, I’ll give it a try”.

RQ actually encourages developing ability in a few select skills. IF the players figure that out or not is another thing.

But if the game is really designed to develop specialists, why not just have classes instead?

Having said all of that, I like to play RQ (actually Stormbringer) sometimes because of the fact that my players do tend to be jack of all trades types. It makes the campaign have a different feel to it and my players seem to appreciate the change. I'm really pumped about MRQ.

Hmmm. Points to ponder! :wink:

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

It's trivial enough to graft "packages" onto a skill based system, for those who have trouble transitioning from a class based one. Hell, even RQ3 did it!

Regarding the old HP problem, I'd say the most likely scenario is that the designers just didn't foresee that HP would be used outside of combat. By the time they came round to handling the other stuff, it was probably too late to go back.

I've little problems with HP gains with experience, so long as they're low enough, as they could conceivably represent a "school of hard knocks". The scale of D&D's increases is, of course, ludicrous.

Bottom line for me is that D&D in it's earlier incarnations (I came in at Basic/Expert and AD&D 1e) was a fundamentally broken system that was nonetheless fun. It's unfortunate that the designers attempted to fix it by going in the wrong direction: adding progressively more and more options instead of removing restrictions. But those earlier incarnations were still fun.

 

[andakitty]

BRP does not have to always be a jack-of-all-trades proposition. On the other hand, I have always found it to be ludicrous that a 'thief' is the only one in a group of adventurers who can listen, climb, have a chance to find or disarm a trap, etc. When the pressure is on be assured that whoever has taken a given skill and is best at it gets the first shot at picking that lock, climbing a rock face or whatever. I have found class and level systems to be restrictive and inflexible ever since I started gaming. Although I understand that tastes vary, and that is fine, I don't like blanket statements such as 'characters in skill-based games always become jack-of-all-trades'. It ain't true. Why don't we just agree to disagree and not bash each other's favorite whatever, OK?

 

[atgxtg]

suppose I might counter by the notion that this makes D&D that much more cinematic and swashbuckling. Indiana Jones (for example) seems to avoid major wounds for most of a battle, then perhaps it’s the bottle broken over his head that “does him in” at the end.

It could be used to make the game more cinematic, buiut the whole combat by attrition system that goes with the hit points ruins it. In fact, at the risk of justifying RMS's postion on HeroQuest, as that ROPG dies just that. In that game, the character wager thier points on the opposed combat rolls, with the loser losing the bet off of his total. Very dramtic and cincematic, since tactics used, desparation, and all that can be factored into the size a a character's bid.

Got me on that one. Healing is just dumb. I shattered my ankle a few years back and was totally non-weight-bearing for eight weeks. I suppose that this would imply that my leg had at least 7*8=56 hit points. Using Blackmoor’s hit location tables as a guide legs have 25% of the total hit points of the character, so I suppose that I must have at least 4*56=224 hit points. If I was a fighter with average luck in rolls (4.5 per hit die) then I would have nearly 50 hit dice. Hmmm.

Well, D20 Star Wars had a solution for this, by spliting damage into a vitiality points/wound points thing. Vitality points represented mostly exahustion and minor scratches, while serious injurues were wounds. THis led to characters healing up vitiality points much faster than wound points.

Again, I gotta say that HeroQest handled this idea very well. In that game, you got all your points back after the contest was over, with the possible exception of slight recction in ability (only the one used) that repented a temporary injury or perhaps even a social or psychological side effect of losing.

My point was simply that the basic mechanic of D&D worked fine for me in a number of house-ruled settings, and this leads me to believe that it could work fine for published settings as well. I have used the basic D&D rules for ancient, modern, future, and all sorts of eras in between.

Sort of depends on how much of the game is considered the "basic mechanic" as well as just what you are trying to use it for. D&D rules do work for a particluar setting/style of play ("Pseduo-Tolkienian High Fantasy?"). You can use the rules for practically any setting (it has been done) but for most setting the rules need to be altered to fit the setting, or else the settinhg will just feel and play like reguar D&D. FOr example, if you are running a setting where characters could dule and kill each other with a single attack (Samurai Iaijutsu duels, or Old West shootouts) the D&D hit point model doesn't work.

THe game can be altered to fit a setting, OGL Ancients is perhaps my favorite 3E D&D book. It esentially throws out 60% of the D&D rules are replaces them with rules that fit the setting. OGL ANcients ends up closer to RQ in some ways than D&D.

But generally speaking, I find it better to go with a system that can handle these settings without a major overhaul.

That’s exactly my frustration with skills. Every player seems to go for the jack of all trades character rather than specialize. Classes are automatic specialization.

Automatic and mandatory specilization. In addtion, it also tied skill direclty with character level. One of the big drawback to D&D IMO is that everything is tied to character level. Level adds in to attack chance, saving throws, hit points, etc. It is much easier to work up a character based upon what he can do, rather than what level he is. Especially as people tend to have varrying skill profiences in differenet areas.

Classes tie down all a character's abilties. For example, in most D&D group's I've played in, we tended to be light in the healing department, as no one wanted to play a cleric. Not that the class doesn't have some nice abilties (IMO it might be the strongest class overall), but every felt that playing the "walking band-aid" wasn't much fun.

Whenever someone wants to devlope a character in a new way in D&D, it requires the creation of a whole new class, sub-class or, these day, aprestigue class. A skill system is much easier in this regard. You want to do something differenet-go take the abilties and try it.

THe every player going for the jack of all trades thing should work itself out when the players get whacked becuase no one is actually good at something. One character with a 90% sword skill, and another with 90% first aid skill, are worth more than 3 characters with 30% in both.

Exactly my point. With a class system, it’s obvious that the thief is “supposed” to do the sneaking. With a skill system everyone says “what the heck, I’ll give it a try”.

Becuase after they get caught and killed, they should probably get sick of losing characters and use thier wits. If the players don't figure that it, it isn't a problem with the system-just stupid players.

I once played in a modern day RPG where a firefight broke out. My character was armed with a .44 automag, but the bullets counldn't penetrate the heavy class IV-V full body armor that our opponenets were wearing. I told people to bug out (I had the heaviest weapon, I my shots were bouncing), but one kid owanted to hang around so he could shoot them with his 9mm SMG. THe fact that his bullets wouldn't penetrate the foe's armor would not penetrate into the kid's skull.

But if the game is really designed to develop specialists, why not just have classes instead?

Having said all of that, I like to play RQ (actually Stormbringer) sometimes because of the fact that my players do tend to be jack of all trades types. It makes the campaign have a different feel to it and my players seem to appreciate the change. I'm really pumped about MRQ.

Several reasons. FIrst off you get to decided what kind of specialist you want tobe in RQ. Not so in D&D-where the classes are premade and pigeon hole you character. Early D&D was even worse, with all the "figherts' being cookie cutouts of ewach other. Like I said before, come up with anew concept in D&D and you need to write up a new class. In RQ you just try out the concept.

If you don't like how a concept is working out, RQ gives you more flexibility there too. In D&D, if you decide that you don't like being a fighter, wizard or whatever, developing into an effective version of what you do want to play is probelmeatic. Sure you can switch classes or multiclass or whatnot, but the whole XP system (I haven't even gotten into that major dysfunction) and "balanced levels" means that your converted character will never be able to challenge those people who started off in the "right' class.

In a skill game you can drop ideas or change concepts in mid stride. Don't like being a wizard becuase you get the crap kicked out of you all the time, learn how to be a fighter! Better still, learn how to be a wizard that can handle a sword so you won't get your butt kicked. Classes not only tell you what you are good at, but prevent you from being goood at anything else. With a skill based game you get to "mix n' match" what you want to get something that works for you. Sure, it is a tradeoff. Time that your wizard spends practicing sword and dodge is time he doesn't spend on his spells. But if sword and dodge save his life, he will live linnger and thus have more time to learn his spells.

One other fauult of the class system is that it is catasphoic if someone playing a differnet class screws up. Since everyone is so specialized, there is little to no ability to cover a department if the specialist goes down or is incompetenet. This puts the entire group at risk. In D&D if the thief goes down, the entire party becomes vulnerable to traps; if the cleric goes down, the party loses it healing and bounce back abilities; take out the fighters and suddently the monsters walk all over the group; drop the magic-user and loses most of thier offenseive magic, as well as the ability to identify items.

With a skill based game, the "second rank" types can at least plug the gap. Maybe thewy aren't quite as good as the specialist, but they are a lot better than the guy with no training in that area. For instance, the second rank healer can usually get the first rank healer functional.

[/i]

 

[atgxtg]

BRP does not have to always be a jack-of-all-trades proposition. On the other hand, I have always found it to be ludicrous that a 'thief' is the only one in a group of adventurers who can listen, climb, have a chance to find or disarm a trap, etc. When the pressure is on be assured that whoever has taken a given skill and is best at it gets the first shot at picking that lock, climbing a rock face or whatever. I have found class and level systems to be restrictive and inflexible ever since I started gaming. Although I understand that tastes vary, and that is fine, I don't like blanket statements such as 'characters in skill-based games always become jack-of-all-trades'. It ain't true. Why don't we just agree to disagree and not bash each other's favorite whatever, OK?

I think he meant that from the POV if his (?) players in his groups. Not as a general statment in all RPG groups.

I know my groups didn't go gneral. Each charactrer ususally focused on some skills as primary, had some other skills they improved from time to time, and for the rest they just were grateful whenever they made an improvement roll. Every once and a while a player would get lucky with a skill and wind up with a high score in something that he didn't pursue.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Ah yes. The 90% World Lore specialist who could also give a good account of himself in a fight is fondly remembered in these parts. Try modelling that in a restrictive class-based system.

 

[andakitty]

Good analysis, atg!

While reading that last post many memories came to me, of trying to make a D&D character, of whatever edition and *NEVER ONCE* coming up with one I was happy with. Especially when trying to use the rules to create one of my favorite type of characters from fiction, the educated mercenary. Like Andrea Orsini, the protagonist of 'Prince of Foxes'. Swordsman, artist, diplomat, soldier. YOU CANNOT DO IT WITH ANY VERSION OF D&D, FOLKS! Or at least I have never been able to. With RQ it's easy. With Stormbringer it may or may not be, but can usually be developed so. Simply by developing a specific set of skills. D&D can multi-class but a specialist will always be ahead of the game...now that is a jack-of-all-trades. With BRP you can make yourself a Renaissance mercenary par excellence with very competent skills...across the board.

 

[atgxtg]

Good analysis, atg!

Not as good as it should have been. I mean, it is a 25 year old debate with me, and the reason why I borke away for m D&D. I should have done better.

While reading that last post many memories came to me, of trying to make a D&D character, of whatever edition and *NEVER ONCE* coming up with one I was happy with. Especially when trying to use the rules to create one of my favorite type of characters from fiction, the educated mercenary. Like Andrea Orsini, the protagonist of 'Prince of Foxes'. Swordsman, artist, diplomat, soldier. YOU CANNOT DO IT WITH ANY VERSION OF D&D, FOLKS! Or at least I have never been able to. With RQ it's easy. With Stormbringer it may or may not be, but can usually be developed so. Simply by developing a specific set of skills. D&D can multi-class but a specialist will always be ahead of the game...now that is a jack-of-all-trades. With BRP you can make yourself a Renaissance mercenary par excellence with very competent skills...across the board.

Probably the best XP/Level game for attemtping something like this would be CODA. While the game does use XP awards and hass professions (classes) and advancements (levels), nothing is actually tied to the levels themselves, but to the skills and abilties of the characters. If you want to improve a combat skill or saving throw, you spend your picks (you get 5 with each advancemnet) to do so. Advancements are uiform (yoe earn one with every 1000 XP, and gain 5 picks per advancmenet with each ability having a cost in picks). Even the professions have limited effect on thew game, since they don't give you anytthing per say, but simply reduce the cost of buying certain skills, and allow you to buy certainl abilties.

EIn CODA, if everything else is equal, a Loremaster with a 12 skill with Blades, he fights as well as anyone else with a 12 skill in blades.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Bushido was in a similar vein, and probably ranks as my personal all-time favourite system (even if it is a bit maths-heavy for today). You had a class and a level, but the classes were based on proper historical archetypes and levels only went from 1 to 6. Skills were percentile but you divided by 5 for actual use in game mechanics, and could be increased by training as well as by being able to add your level to the score (after division by 5) for certain "class skills".

Plus the whole experience system was based on Honour as well as on killing things.

 

[atgxtg]

Bushido was in a similar vein, and probably ranks as my personal all-time favourite system (even if it is a bit maths-heavy for today). You had a class and a level, but the classes were based on proper historical archetypes and levels only went from 1 to 6. Skills were percentile but you divided by 5 for actual use in game mechanics, and could be increased by training as well as by being able to add your level to the score (after division by 5) for certain "class skills".

Plus the whole experience system was based on Honour as well as on killing things.

Hey, I own that RPG. Bushido was a fairly nice system. Level didn't mean very much in that game at all, at least in regards to accomplishing thigs. A character with a 90BCS was good no matter what his level. The system was a big on the clunky side though, mostly as it inheriented FGU's house system for most of its game mechanics, at that system was Aftermath!, hency the "math-heavy" stuff.

I though Bushido was great back in the day, but there are several other RPGs that cover thae genre that I think do a better job now. Rq's Land of the Ninja (dencent but flawed and incomplete); Lengend of the Five Rings (excellent Samuai game if a bit high magic, although not actually set in Japan); Sengouku (orignally called the new Bushido, although it eventually adopted the fuzion rules system); and the new Usagi Yojimbo RPG (ignore that the characters are "furry animals" and you got a very nice system with a kurasawa-esque Japan).

But back in 81, Bushido sure beat the competion. It only serious competiotor was Lee Gold's C&S deritivative Land of the Rising Sun.[/i]

 

[andakitty]

I am happy with the BRP way. Especially now that it looks like MRQ is going to be similar, and in print.

Assuming MRQ is the animal I think it is, what will REALLY make me happy is Lankhmar. Good system+good setting will rock my boat big time. My fingers remain crossed.

 

[Finarvyn]

Ouch. I’m not feeling too welcome in this thread any more.

Bottom line for me is that D&D in it's earlier incarnations was a fundamentally broken system that was nonetheless fun...

Y’know, it’s tough to carry on a decent conversation if you’re going to use phrases like “fundamentally broken system”. I mean, having played it for 30 years, saying my game is broken is almost more of an insult than a point of discussion. How about just saying you don’t like it? 8)

I have found class and level systems to be restrictive and inflexible ever since I started gaming. I don't like blanket statements such as 'characters in skill-based games always become jack-of-all-trades'. It ain't true.

And I have found the opposite to be the case. I have DMed quite a few different gaming groups over 3 decades, and a high percentage (read: not “always”) of my players have chosen the do-it-all route over specialization.

Many memories came to me, of trying to make a D&D character, of whatever edition and *NEVER ONCE* coming up with one I was happy with.

That is really unfortunate. No wonder you hate D&D so much. :shock:

Especially when trying to use the rules to create one of my favorite type of characters from fiction, the educated mercenary. Like Andrea Orsini, the protagonist of 'Prince of Foxes'. Swordsman, artist, diplomat, soldier. YOU CANNOT DO IT WITH ANY VERSION OF D&D, FOLKS! Or at least I have never been able to.

I have to assume you are kidding me here. The 1974 brown book OD&D game had a class called “Fighting Man” and it was easy to give him a high charisma. From there, it’s all a matter of how you play the character. I don’t need a skill to act diplomatic, I just do it. It’s called “role playing”.

Why don't we just agree to disagree and not bash each other's favorite whatever, OK?

This is what I get for trying to conduct a civilized discussion on this issue. Most gamers are so passionate about their own style that they ridicule those who do not share their point of view, so I get judgmental phrases like “fundamentally broken system” and “restrictive” and “inflexible” tossed my way. :?

Honestly, the anger in this thread is unbelievable. :shock:

 

[andakitty]

If you don't like what's coming back at you, stop and consider how your statements sound like you are so superior. And condescending.

There is always Dragonsfoot.

 

[atgxtg]

Finarvyn,

You should not get insulted by someone commenting on a game system. Unless you wrote it or something.

A lot of any decision to play an RPG is prefernce and opinion. THat is a given for any discussion on what people like in an RPG.

A lot of the armeneuts on both sides of this topic depend upon what you are trying to do with an RPG and how you play it. I know lots of people who have played D&D for years and find nothing wrong with the system. However, whenever I sit in for a session, I see them doing things and tactics that range from illogical to idiotic to impossible. THis isn't a negative comment on them, just that the D&D rules work a certain way, and that way doesn't match up well with reality or even with historical data. None of that bothers those players though, so they are happy with the system.

Also many of the points about what you, I or anyone else has done in the past are of limited value. None of us really know how (or how well) each other runs a game, thier partical style or what sort of players are in thier groups. THis makes a big difference on how things work out. For example, and this is not a criticism on you, but merely a statement based upon my past experience as a GM, you mention that your players had a high percentage of choing a "do it all" approach in RQ. Now in my experinece as a RQ GM, that approach would prpbably wipe out the group on a faily consistient basis. Essentially there are only so many hours in a week, and if you try to learn ten things rathern than one it will take ten times as long. In most RQ campaign's I'vee seen, such characters would progress so slowly that they would become easy picking for opponents.

So that things haven't gone that way in your campaigns indicates a differnetce in how you run a game from the way I, and other RQ GM's I'veknown, run a game. THat's not questioning your skills or abilities as a GM, just pointing out a difference in style that makes it more difficult to make comparisons.

I have to assume you are kidding me here. Smile The 1974 brown book OD&D game had a class called “Fighting Man” and it was easy to give him a high charisma. From there, it’s all a matter of how you play the character. I don’t need a skill to act diplomatic, I just do it. It’s called “role playing”.

Oh boy, big difference in viewpoint here. For starters lets go with the game mechanics. Sure D&D has a Charsima stat. Secondly, the stat is nearly worthless in old D&D, with functions limited to determining the number of followers and retainers a character can have.

Secondly, lets look at you "it's called roleplaying" crack. Sure you can say uoi are doing a lot of thing in a game, but it doesn't mean squat if the rules don't back you up. You can't just settle a dispute and work out a peace traty by acting polite and pinting out that you have a high charisma. Otherwise we'd have had world peace by now. I don't need a skill to "act"like a master swordsman, but I certainly need one in a RPG if I expect my character to get the results of a master swordsman. In addtion, is it correct to make all non-combat abilties something that the player must roleplay? I mean, we don't expect the fighters to roleplay thier swordplay, or the wizards to roleplay spellcasting. Why should someone playing a bard be denied a game mechanic that lets them charm the pants (in some cases literally) off of people? Most of the poeple around the gaming table aren't professional con-men in real life, so that doesn't mean they cannot play such a chartacter in a game.

So andakitty's point is rather valid here.

As for the thread being hostile, I don't think so. You did ask for people's point of view on the topic (well, specifically my point of view, but it is an open forum), so you have to expect judgemental statements. It goes along with the whole point of view thing.

Of course, if you want proof for these statements, I can dig that up for you.

1) D&D IS restrictive: Sure it is. You had to choose one of 3 character classes (fighting man, magic use, thief)that determined your character's abilties for the rest of his (or her) life.

2) D&D IS fundamentally broken: The thief passes the fighting man on the combat charts due to a fundamental flaw with the XP to Level tables.

3) D&D iIS infexible. Like I said before, it doesnot adapt to most other setting without a major overahul.You can run a decent Iajutsu duel (killed in one hit) between 15th level Samurai. Ditto with firearms. You can't even run a good Lord of the Rings camapign with it, and that is what D&D was based off of.

 

[Utgardloki]

Ouch. I’m not feeling too welcome in this thread any more.

I also agree that D&D is a great system, and the 3.5 incarnation of the game is really wonderful, in my opinion.

Still, I'm willing to give Runequest a shot, to see what it's like. The way I see it, they will be different tools for different jobs. From what I've read, I wouldn't want to run a superhero game in Runequest, while D&D may not be the best choice for my "Tales of the Association" game set in the modern era.

As for being unable to create the character you want in D&D, anything is possible in 3.5. If multiclassing, special feats, and skill selection can't give you what you want, you can design your own class and prestige classes that let you do anything. Granted, your GM might not allow you to play a class that grants full BAB progression, 9th level spells, and three good saving throws. But if the 11 basic classes, 15 official base classes released in official supplements, base classes released by third parties, and all the prestige classes in creation don't give you the character you want, you can create your own.

We should have a thread "Refugees from D&D" where all the complaints against D&D can be lodged.

Anyway, my opinion is that Runequest and D&D are both cool games.

 

[andakitty]

I know I can create something like the educated mercenary with D&D, but to clarify, I am not happy with the result. When you multiclass or take a prestige class you enhance one aspect and the others stall out. You wind up with not very competent PC in any one area, with a collection of mediocre skills, all of which the specialists in the party are better at. You don't even have spells if you try to model the character I mentioned. Very unsatisfying. I'm sure someone who knows the rules could come closer, but it would be a pretty high level character before it resembled Orsini at the time of the events in 'Prince of Foxes'. This is one of my key frustrations with 3.5, no it's THE key. It simply isn't fun for me. For which I see utterly no reason to apologize.

Honestly the only system besides BRP that came close was TFT/GURPS. You note they are both skill based. All this amounts too is 'different strokes for different folks'. No way will I allow anyone to assert how superior their tastes are. We can agree to disagree and maybe try to find common ground. Or not.

At any rate, pax.

 

[jadrax]

It simply isn't fun for me. For which I see utterly no reason to apologize.

I don't think anyone should ever have to feel they have to tbh. Not everyone will enjoy everything, its a fact of life.

I know I have been stuck in campaigns that I have loathed and the other players have loved, and just have to bite the bullet and anchknowlage that the game is not for you and move on.

What we should be focusing upon here is do we feel the Runequest system is mechanically a close fit to the films. I must admit I am not convinced it is.