What if Conan leaves d20 for anotehr system?

[LilithsThrall]

and why math-heavy game systems are counter to roleplaying

im just curious. do you consider it to be math-heavy because it contains alot of math or because it contains more complex form of mathematics? because i dont really consider addition, subtraction, division and multiplication as something that makes a game math-heavy.

[/quote]

There's actually quite a lot more math (Bayesian inference, game theory, etc.) hiding behind all that addition and subtraction. In addition, doing a lot of addition and subtraction on the fly and under pressure is math-heavy.

 

[flatscan]

There's actually quite a lot more math (Bayesian inference, game theory, etc.) hiding behind all that addition and subtraction. In addition, doing a lot of addition and subtraction on the fly and under pressure is math-heavy.

Behind the rules? Possibly. That a player has to know to run with a character? Hardly.

Have you actually played D&D 4e or are you just on the bandwagon because you want something to bitch about? They simplified the game that was 3.5 considerably. And no, the simplified rules don't get in the way of role-playing. You're right that there isn't a lot of "fluff" included in the the Player's Handbook. The reason being that the PHB's goal was to be a generic starting point to expand to different worlds like Forgotten Realms and later Eberron who all have their unique take on the different races (remember Dragonlance's halflings, called Kender?).

I'm considering getting the original D&D rules that you guys hail as so mighty (I started RPing with AD&D 2e), just so I can see how much/little "fluff" and "variety" of classes was in the main rulebook and how much of this BS argument is from rose-tinted goggles nailed into your head. :evil:

 

[rabindranath72]

I'm considering getting the original D&D rules that you guys hail as so mighty (I started RPing with AD&D 2e), just so I can see how much/little "fluff" and "variety" of classes was in the main rulebook and how much of this BS argument is from rose-tinted goggles nailed into your head. :evil:

Very little fluff, very few rules. For a slightly larger level of complexity, but with much more flavor, you can consider Classic D&D. OD&D is one of those "sandbox" systems, in which practically everything MUST be roleplayed, since the rules provide only the barest framework to build upon, and most of it is related to magic and combat (in keeping with its roots into Chainmail).
You can roleplay with 4e and roleplay with OD&D. The only difference being the much larger number of rules which consitute the framework for magic and combat in the former.

 

[LilithsThrall]

There's actually quite a lot more math (Bayesian inference, game theory, etc.) hiding behind all that addition and subtraction. In addition, doing a lot of addition and subtraction on the fly and under pressure is math-heavy.

Behind the rules? Possibly. That a player has to know to run with a character? Hardly.

Have you actually played D&D 4e or are you just on the bandwagon because you want something to bitch about? They simplified the game that was 3.5 considerably. And no, the simplified rules don't get in the way of role-playing. You're right that there isn't a lot of "fluff" included in the the Player's Handbook. The reason being that the PHB's goal was to be a generic starting point to expand to different worlds like Forgotten Realms and later Eberron who all have their unique take on the different races (remember Dragonlance's halflings, called Kender?).

I'm considering getting the original D&D rules that you guys hail as so mighty (I started RPing with AD&D 2e), just so I can see how much/little "fluff" was in the main rulebook and how much of this BS argument is from rose-tinted goggles nailed into your head. :evil:

I've actually played 4e and your question is as rude as if I'd asked, "do you really think 4e is that good or are you just looking for something to kiss up to?"
I've not said a word about "fluff". And when players are spending time thinking about what action their character will take in order to maximize numerical bonuses, they are, in fact, focusing on the math.

 

[flatscan]

I've actually played 4e and your question is as rude as if I'd asked, "do you really think 4e is that good or are you just looking for something to kiss up to?"
I've not said a word about "fluff". And when players are spending time thinking about what action their character will take in order to maximize numerical bonuses, they are, in fact, focusing on the math.

I got your posts mixed up with Sutek's. Mea culpa. The "fluff" portion is aimed at him. As is this next statement. Here's a list of the TSR produced products for D&D and other games. I wonder how many options for fighters were divided among these books?

As to the math, again, the rules are simpler in 4e than they were in 3.5. Which is why I take issue with your argument. How can simpler rules lead to greater attention to math at the sake of role-play? I know from personal experience that role-play is happening with the new D&D rules despite you nay-sayers nay-saying.

Anyhow, it's pretty irrelevant to this topic as Conan is still entrenched in the base rules of 3.5. And I'll play Conan over D&D any day. :twisted:

 

[Demetrio]

You wrote that people dislike 'hard' rules because they can't understand them

Actually what I said was:

And I think we can agree that some people find 'hard' rules inhibit their suspension of disbelief because they can't grasp the mechanics.

Some people. Not all. ie not all those who dislike hard rules do so because they cannot grasp them. Also hard rules need not be overly mathematical, they might just require lots of memorisation.

There's a reason you don't find a mosh pit at a folk music festival, why organizational psychologists spend countless hours researching the best way to do brainstorming, why there are rules in improv theater, why a charismatic church creates a different kind of environment than a liturgical one, and why math-heavy game systems are counter to roleplaying. It's all a matter of which parts of the brain you are focusing on. This principle (called 'structuralism') has been recognized by social scientists at least since Malinowski. But you are, of course, free to ignore it.

It's interesting that you take this tack because some people enjoy mosh pits and others folk festivals (some might enjoy both at different times). Are you saying that one promotes the enjoyment of music and the other does not? Or that the environment in an evangelical church promotes spirituality more than that found in a liturgical one? They're unrelated to why a maths heavy game might run counter to roleplaying.

But your definition of maths heavy interests me strangely. Tell me something that's maths heavy about 4th ed D&D. More maths heavy than found in 3.5 games. There's a powerful amount of pesky adding and subtracting done in 3.5: synergy bonuses, situational modifiers, shield bonus, superior weapon, defensive boost for a set spear versus a charge etc. And game theory... 3.5 is full of it. whole supplements have been devoted to maximising the abilities of character classes and the multiplicity of feats and their possible combinations mean that exploring every option is a fairly complex task.

 

[LilithsThrall]

You wrote that people dislike 'hard' rules because they can't understand them

Actually what I said was:

And I think we can agree that some people find 'hard' rules inhibit their suspension of disbelief because they can't grasp the mechanics.

Some people. Not all. ie not all those who dislike hard rules do so because they cannot grasp them. Also hard rules need not be overly mathematical, they might just require lots of memorisation.

There's a reason you don't find a mosh pit at a folk music festival, why organizational psychologists spend countless hours researching the best way to do brainstorming, why there are rules in improv theater, why a charismatic church creates a different kind of environment than a liturgical one, and why math-heavy game systems are counter to roleplaying. It's all a matter of which parts of the brain you are focusing on. This principle (called 'structuralism') has been recognized by social scientists at least since Malinowski. But you are, of course, free to ignore it.

It's interesting that you take this tack because some people enjoy mosh pits and others folk festivals (some might enjoy both at different times). Are you saying that one promotes the enjoyment of music and the other does not? Or that the environment in an evangelical church promotes spirituality more than that found in a liturgical one? They're unrelated to why a maths heavy game might run counter to roleplaying.

But your definition of maths heavy interests me strangely. Tell me something that's maths heavy about 4th ed D&D. More maths heavy than found in 3.5 games. There's a powerful amount of pesky adding and subtracting done in 3.5: synergy bonuses, situational modifiers, shield bonus, superior weapon, defensive boost for a set spear versus a charge etc. And game theory... 3.5 is full of it. whole supplements have been devoted to maximising the abilities of character classes and the multiplicity of feats and their possible combinations mean that exploring every option is a fairly complex task.

I never said that a math heavy system prevents a bunch of friends from gathering around a table, bouncing dice, and having fun, nor did I ever say that roleplaying is inherently superior to tactical sims. I make a living solving mathematical problems. I enjoy it and I'm good at it. What I said is that a math heavy system is counter to roleplaying. You're free to feel there's some sort of implicit value statement in that, but I don't agree.

 

[Oly]

What I said is that a math heavy system is counter to roleplaying. You're free to feel there's some sort of implicit value statement in that, but I don't agree.

A maths/rules heavy system is, in my experience, a slight detriment to roleplaying at moments when that system is in use, for example during combat. And that, I find, is due to the increased time that players and the GM are having to think "rules", I want combat to be quick and so that time has to come from somewhere.

However most of my session time isn't spent in combat and is spent roleplaying and the system really doesn't seem to have any real impact on things at all.

And I also am not giving any value statements. I have great fun in very tactical and detailed RPG combat, and great fun in very fluid and light combat.

 

[flatscan]

I never said that a math heavy system prevents a bunch of friends from gathering around a table, bouncing dice, and having fun, nor did I ever say that roleplaying is inherently superior to tactical sims. I make a living solving mathematical problems. I enjoy it and I'm good at it. What I said is that a math heavy system is counter to roleplaying. You're free to feel there's some sort of implicit value statement in that, but I don't agree.

And this is where your criticism of 4e falls apart, because it's not any more math heavy than 3.5 or Conan is. And even in those systems there is plenty of RP happening. Your mileage may vary of course, but I've had fun, successful role-play sessions with all 3 of those systems. Perhaps not to the degree of role-play in a game like Vampire the Masquerade but that can be laid at the feet of the genre as much as mechanics. Sword & sorcery demands action and combat. And for that I want fair rules that cover a variety of situations and tactics. But even in the midst of tactical combat there's room for role-play. The PCs in my game are constantly taking advantage of the free actions to speak to one another during combat. Mostly about tactics, "close the door while I hold them off" and the like, but even when using a Steely Gaze at an opponent they'll throw out a one-liner. Are you saying in your games without tactical rules your PCs do more RP than this during combat? What about?

 

[Demetrio]

What I said is that a math heavy system is counter to roleplaying.

Yes. And you also said:

And when players are spending time thinking about what action their character will take in order to maximize numerical bonuses, they are, in fact, focusing on the math.

Which I won't argue with. I'd just like an example of how D&D 4th ed is worse in this regard than 3.5. Because you like 3.5 don't you (at least relatively speaking)? Because you said:

I was referencing 4e, not 3.5 and 4e is a lot more concerned with mathematics than 3x is

And you seem to have missed my asking for a specific example of how 4th ed makes more mathematical demands than 3.5.

Also, I must say that if you're spending a while calculating how to fight rather than just getting on with fighting then 3.5 will get bogged down. there's no need to play like that at all though with 3.5 and I cannot imagine there is any need to with 4th ed. Just mave the moves that seem best to you and you can roleplay without all that nasty maths getting in your way so much.

nor did I ever say that roleplaying is inherently superior to tactical sims

I didn't say you did. I just said a good few posts back that many tactical sims can be used to roleplay - and in fact some people were doing so, to a small extent, pre-Gygax. I'd add that Tac Sim rules can give a perfectly good rp experience - or a terrible one. For reasons unrelated to the complexity or mathematical nature of the rules...

 

[LilithsThrall]

First, you should compare apples to apples - the 3.5 phb to the 4 phb, not the 4 phb to all the 3.5 bloat. 4 will end up with bloat. It's just a matter of time. Second, if you want an example of how 4e is much more focused on the math, all you have to do is look at all the different ways you can move a character one hex.

 

[Demetrio]

So how many ways can you move a character one hex? And how much more mathematical complexity is in 4th ed php as opposed to 3.5 phb?

I don't own either so I'd actually really like to know.

 

[flatscan]

First, you should compare apples to apples - the 3.5 phb to the 4 phb, not the 4 phb to all the 3.5 bloat. 4 will end up with bloat. It's just a matter of time. Second, if you want an example of how 4e is much more focused on the math, all you have to do is look at all the different ways you can move a character one hex.

One hex? What game were you playing?

Kidding aside, yeah 4e has tactical combat rules, but I would refer you to my previous post about this. You're not fighting ALL the time and combat is where you would apply the specifics of movement. Again, it's the GM and players that breathe life into the roles, not the rules.

 

[LilithsThrall]

First, you should compare apples to apples - the 3.5 phb to the 4 phb, not the 4 phb to all the 3.5 bloat. 4 will end up with bloat. It's just a matter of time. Second, if you want an example of how 4e is much more focused on the math, all you have to do is look at all the different ways you can move a character one hex.

One hex? What game were you playing?

Kidding aside, yeah 4e has tactical combat rules, but I would refer you to my previous post about this. You're not fighting ALL the time and combat is where you would apply the specifics of movement. Again, it's the GM and players that breathe life into the roles, not the rules.

I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of the point you are making. Shouldn't a game system encourage roleplaying in combat?

 

[flatscan]

I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of the point you are making. Shouldn't a game system encourage roleplaying in combat?

That was my question posed to you 2 posts ago. How DO you roleplay during combat? This being a Conan forum I'm looking at this from my own experience with the Conan RPG and the stories penned by Robert E Howard. Other than an odd line here or there (like the brief exchange in the fight at the beginning of the Frost Giant's Daughter), combat is combat, brutal and bloody with evocative description. The talking mainly happens before and after.

 

[LilithsThrall]

I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of the point you are making. Shouldn't a game system encourage roleplaying in combat?

That was my question posed to you 2 posts ago. How DO you roleplay during combat? This being a Conan forum I'm looking at this from my own experience with the Conan RPG and the stories penned by Robert E Howard. Other than an odd line here or there (like the brief exchange in the fight at the beginning of the Frost Giant's Daughter), combat is combat, brutal and bloody with evocative description. The talking mainly happens before and after.

I don't think that's true. In Conan d20, a soldier may focus on being a striker, a defender, or a leader (to borrow 4e terms). This freedom is enhanced by a greater diversity of available feats, being able to spend Int bonus skill points freely, etc. So a soldier can be an academic fencer specializing in combat expertise, an in-your-face gladiator specializing in cleave, a dex fighter with bluff and tumbling, etc. You have the ability to play a character the way you want to play it without hamstringing yourself. You don't have to play a defender.

 

[flatscan]

I don't think that's true. In Conan d20, a soldier may focus on being a striker, a defender, or a leader (to borrow 4e terms). This freedom is enhanced by a greater diversity of available feats, being able to spend Int bonus skill points freely, etc. So a soldier can be an academic fencer specializing in combat expertise, an in-your-face gladiator specializing in cleave, a dex fighter with bluff and tumbling, etc. You have the ability to play a character the way you want to play it without hamstringing yourself. You don't have to play a defender.

Huh? What are we talking about here? I thought we were discussing role-play during combat but your statement is more about the variety of tactics presented in the Conan rules vs. D&D 4e. Color me confused. :?

 

[LilithsThrall]

I don't think that's true. In Conan d20, a soldier may focus on being a striker, a defender, or a leader (to borrow 4e terms). This freedom is enhanced by a greater diversity of available feats, being able to spend Int bonus skill points freely, etc. So a soldier can be an academic fencer specializing in combat expertise, an in-your-face gladiator specializing in cleave, a dex fighter with bluff and tumbling, etc. You have the ability to play a character the way you want to play it without hamstringing yourself. You don't have to play a defender.

Huh? What are we talking about here? I thought we were discussing role-play during combat but your statement is more about the variety of tactics presented in the Conan rules vs. D&D 4e. Color me confused. :?

What does 'roleplaying' mean to you? To me, it means portraying a character. What my last post was getting at is that Conan d20 gives you the option to portray a number of different kinds of soldiers. It doesn't shoehorn you.

 

[Hervé]

I really think combat can be roleplayed.

We tend to go towards narrative and descriptive combat, hence our dislike of the current system which looks like more a video game or miniature boardgame system than a RPG to me. The fact it got even worse with 4th ed is no excuse...

I've been testing, editing, reading and playing hundreds of different systems over the last 30 years and I stand convinced that the game engine has a deep impact on roleplaying, whatever some might say.

Want it or not, there is an average "D&D behaviour"...

Simple and pure systems tend to push towards narrative roleplaying, where more complex ones are pushing towards number crunching and bookkeeping. When you start thinking about your character in numbers and combos, you're begining to fall outside of the scope of roleplaying to go back to the boargaming origins of fantasy gaming...

I don't say one way is better than the other, but you just have to know where you stand. Personally, I've made my choice loonnng ago...

 

[flatscan]

I really think combat can be roleplayed.

Please, give an example of what this means. Just a quick one turn example of how you 'roleplay' combat.

We tend to go towards narrative and descriptive combat, hence our dislike of the current system which looks like more a video game or miniature boardgame system than a RPG to me. The fact it got even worse with 4th ed is no excuse...

Except it still uses the mind's eye. We may use tokens or minis in 3.5, 4e or Conan but when I'm running I recap the turn after everyone has acted and use as evocative description as possible (try to anyhow). When my player's are in the moment they're not thinking about the minis or tokens they're imagining their characters actions. Actions are still described and help build the narrative. I simply don't see how one is more advantageous over the other. Your mileage may vary.

Want it or not, there is an average "D&D behaviour"...

And there is elitist gamer behavior that is a severe turn off to whatever enlightened system the elitists are selling. Like it or not, people are having fun role-playing (yes, role-playing) with Conan, D&D 3.5, and D&D 4e.

I don't say one way is better than the other, but you just have to know where you stand. Personally, I've made my choice loonnng ago...

Glad that works for you. The market indicates, with D&D still being the heavy hitter that it is, that's not where the majority of gamers reside. We're not having badwrongfun because we're not all playing BRP (which I love for Call of Cthulhu btw, but wouldn't touch for Conan) or the Storyteller system.