Jump to content

The Judge Dredd Roleplaying Game


Defender

Recommended Posts

I'll grant before I even start this review I've little business making it. My experiences with Judge Dredd come mainly from the feature film (*shudder*) and a chance read of one of the novels released by Virgin Publishing by Dave Stone. Nevertheless, I have found the Judge Dredd concept to be very intriguing, and the idea of a dystopian fascist society that is at once science fiction adventure and dark satire on the state of the modern world to be intriguing to say the least.

The time is the early 22nd century. The place is Mega-City One, one of the last bastions of civilization in a world devasted by the Atom War, or World War III. Mega-City One boasts a population of four hundred -million-, and is every sprawling megatropolis image you've ever imagined from Blade Runner to a little Coruscant. Unemployment is rampant, with 87% of the city's population on Welfare, and those that do have jobs teetering on the brink of being replaced by robotics. People live in gigantic apartment/mall/small city complexes called city-blocks. In a city of this size, with such depressing conditions, surrounded by the nuclear wasteland of the Cursed Earth, crime is an inevitability. The only thing between Mega-City One and total anarchy? The judges. In this world, there are no police, no lawyers, and no juries. Judges wield the ultimate authority, patrolling the city streets on their lawmaster motorcycles and keeping the peace with their lawgiver pistols. From the tough-as-nails road warrior street judges to the spooky and mysterious telepathic Psi-judges, the Justice Department of Mega-City One wages a never-ending battle for Law, Order, and keeping the Creeps in Line.

And lucky you, you get to play in this world.

The Judge Dredd Roleplaying Game would seem to be limited to the two major protagonist types: Street Judge and Psi-Judge, but this is hardly the case. The team at Mongoose publishing has expanded the possibilities by letting players take on roles of citizens and lunatics of Mega-City One, from a regular citizen to a skysurfer (an extreme sports type that uses flying hoverboards to soar the skies), to concepts as way out as gang lieutenants and even superheroes! The world of Judge Dredd has been around awhile, and it shows in the rich presentation Mongoose has produced in this awesome product.

There are a few drawbacks of course. The first is the price.$39.95 US is a hefty chunk of change (lucky me, the Canadian shelled out about 63 bucks and change for this tome. The perils of being a fanboy. . . ::tongue ) even for a volume as impressive looking and enjoyable as this. A durable hardcover at 256 pages, richly illustrated with some very cool examples of computer-generated art. Still. . .ouch. Another letdown is the d20 system. I know, I know, it's cool to have a universal roleplaying system that allows everyone to get in on new games on an even footing. Still, I don't really enjoy d20. I can play it, but it's not my bag baby. ::confused

On the whole? Dredd rules. If you're looking for a science fiction setting that runs the gamut from straight action to dark comedy, then look no further than Judge Dredd. So buy it already, it's far from drek and it's drokkin' good. ::bigsmile

-Defender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds pretty cool, well apart from the d20 factor that is ::confused . Does it seem like it would be easy, or at least reasonable, to convert to storyteller system?

By the way, I didn't mind the movie, I couldn't stop laughing, and the villain was great, or at least the actor made it work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's certainly possible to convert the d20 rules to d10, given a bit of legwork. The game itself is gorgeous and the setting material is really well done. If you've got the extra cash lying around I'd definitely give it a look-see.

-Def.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to find the sheer amount of time and energy one devotes to the d20 system to take away from the overall gaming experience, but that's just me.

As a side note, the art in the book is great, with some really neat computer-generated images of the Lawgiver pistol, Lawmaster motorcycle, and the downright -sick- (in terms of power) Manta Prowler tank. Starting Judges get a lot of toys and resources to draw upon (they begin as 3rd level characters) and it's impressive 22nd century tech to say the least. :)

-Def.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to find the sheer amount of time and energy one devotes to the d20 system to take away from the overall gaming experience, but that's just me.

Ditto.

phoenix despite the fact it's called d20 system, it uses the whole dnd set: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20, d100 (just a d10 with an extra 0 next to the numbers). You roll the single d20 for almost all rolls and add your Skill (abilities) ranks plus Abilities (attributes) modifiers (ratings given depending on what your abilities are) to the number rolled to hit a target number to determine success/failure, rolling a 1 is a critical fumble (botch).

Basing this on dnd, not sure how it is for JD, characters 6 Abilities (strength, dexterity, constitution, intelligence, wisdom, charisma) are usually rolled, 4d6 subtracting the worst number for a minimum of 3 to maximum of 18 (race dependant), this is done for all 6. Hit points (health levels) are based on the character class plus constitution score, first level grants the maximum possible, it's rolled there after ie. fighter class has a d10 hit die, each level up the player rolls a d10 and the number that comes up plus thier constitution modifier (being a fighter should be decent) is added to their total.

Not getting into spell system because I'm not a fan of it. As simply as i can put it, you prepare a set number of spells of the list available to you (class dependant) in advance (usually the day before), before you can cast those spells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strangely enough, I like the D20 System...It's got a lot of crunchy bits ::biggrin , it's a LOT easier to track character progression, and it uses a lot less dice than some systems.

I only need nine dice total (one of each type, plus percentile and four six-siders), unless I'm running a mage, and even then that's just for damage. This is opposed to Champions (where having at least 25 or so six-siders is a good idea) or the ST system (real minimum: twenty ten-siders). Admittedly, I don't many gamers with fewer than sixty dice of all types, but it is worth noting.

Also, the rules are more clear-cut than the ST system. A lot of ST abilities are "up to the ST", and "may do more than this; ask your ST". Not to mention the unknown variables (just how long does it take to learn a ritual, anyway?), and contradictory statements (don't get me started on the how Inspired, novas, and psions are all related). D&D at least publishes stats for its canon characters, AND follows its own rules; when ST publishes characters, it seems you need to make at least one exception to make them work ::crazy ; I have no problem with the ocasional rules exception, but EVERY character?

And tracking character progression...You may never have encountered players that cheat, but (outside of just disallowing the character) the ST has to do so much computations to figure out how XP/freebies were spent that it gets obnoxious, especially when there's so many types of characters out there; anyone know off the top of his head how many full attacks a Lupines gypsy is capable of in turn of combat? (48! ::crazy , all at +1 diff, not allowing for Time magicks) At least with a D20 character I can figure out where the house rules are, and quickly...

And then there are the published "adventurers"; for a company with an emphasis on story-telling, you'd think that these would be its best part. However, they're set up with so many options, that a six-page story ends up being thirty ::crazy . And all that for an essentially fixed outcome that the players have no real control over...

I do like the ST system overall, it just seems that hating D&D is such an almost automatic reaction that I felt a little balancing was in order. Both systems have their good and bad points...

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like the ST system overall, it just seems that hating D&D is such an almost automatic reaction that I felt a little balancing was in order. Both systems have their good and bad points...

Very true ::thumbsup .

Was gonna put some personal gripes with d20 but it's not important. It's all about personal preference, give it a try if you like it great if not even greater ::tongue . By the way try your local library you might be suprised to find a crapload of roleplaying books, if you don't, badger them into getting some, it's a great way to try before you buy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why I dislike d20:

1) Making characters above first level takes ages (at least twice as long as trinity/aberrant etc)- even with a program to help (which I admit is handy - but then ones can be written for anything)

2) I hate levels. D20 is a step up from regular AD&D 2nd Ed admittedly, but at least that was easier to make higher level characters with. ::tongue

3) I hate classes. Again - D20 makes it possible to take things outside your class at a higher cost - basically everything becomes a proficiency, which is fair, but they could have gone the whole hog ala rolemaster.

4) Now - what I did right there... was that an action? a free action? a partial action? a partially free action? not even an action? and possibly more to the point (excuse the pun ::tongue ) did it provoke one of those amazingly annoying attacks of opportunity? hang on - let me look it up. it'll only take a minute or two... I saw it on page 207... oh no wait... I'll find it eventually guys - it's definitely not on page XX - this is SO quality!

5) Yes - you know - when I was using my special ability... or was it an innate ability? or a supernatural ability? I want to do that again. Can't I? um... Can't I use an innate ability instead of a supernatural ability? no? oh bugger.

6) Hang on - don't worry worthy players - in but a minute I shall calculate the threat factor of the twenty-three kobolds and the chihuahua that ye brave soles didst vanquish and from that fine figure shall I extract in all its glory the experience award from which each of ye fine fine (probably) gentlemen shall draw your just reward...

... some time later..

um... does anyone have a calculator?

---

bottom line - everyone likes what suits them best... I'm a system tinkerer in my spare time, but when it comes to playing I want something to handle a few things quickly - everything else I will probably wing anyway and I couldn't care less what the rules say. I really REALLY don't want to turn to page 207 or whatever it is. On the other hand I want some realism - but that I inject through common sense more than relying on the system - which regardless of its complexity will fail at some point.

nuff said.

-Knave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

::blink

Hate D&D? Me? No way! I'm a fan of Dragonlance (pre-Dragons of Summer Flame fiasco) and Ravenloft fan from way back. I really enjoy the new edition of Ravenloft SSS put out. It's just that I started gaming nearly ten years ago with the White Wolf system and it's hard for an old fart like me to change (hell, getting me to try the Trinity/Exalted system took some cajoling. . . ::tongue ). And I love the depth of detail that Wizards is trying for with their d20 Modern and such, trying hard to reach the mainstream crowd. I'm sorry if I came off sounding uber-negative. ::blush

-Def.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I was so planning to be a nice guy ::rolleyes ....

1) Making characters above first level takes ages (at least twice as long as trinity/aberrant etc)- even with a program to help (which I admit is handy - but then ones can be written for anything)

It takes me about thirty minutes to create a character for either system (half that for comedy systems, and twice that for RuneQuest and Space Opera), and more experienced characters are actually easier because I'm not agonizing over feats and skills as long ("I can only have one???"). But then again, if it's taking you longer than that, then yeah, I can see why you hate the system; but next time, look at that neat little cheat sheet right at the start ::tongue ...

2) I hate levels. D20 is a step up from regular AD&D 2nd Ed admittedly, but at least that was easier to make higher level characters with. ::tongue

3) I hate classes. Again - D20 makes it possible to take things outside your class at a higher cost - basically everything becomes a proficiency, which is fair, but they could have gone the whole hog ala rolemaster.

Non-issue: D&D is set up along high-fantasy lines, which means that most wizards have limited fighting education, and fighters have little spell-casting experience. In those cases (stratified classes), a class/level system makes sense. In a less-stratified situation (where characters are expected to be jacks-of-all-trades) a more point-based system makes sense. It all depends on setting...

Side Note: If you're a fan of high-combat cinematic games, then a level-system for non-fighters will probably grate even more because everyone has high levels of combat skill, which is in direct opposition to a level-system (where everything is set for balance)...

4) Now - what I did right there... was that an action? a free action? a partial action? a partially free action? not even an action? and possibly more to the point (excuse the pun tongue.gif ) did it provoke one of those amazingly annoying attacks of opportunity? hang on - let me look it up. it'll only take a minute or two... I saw it on page 207... oh no wait... I'll find it eventually guys - it's definitely not on page XX - this is SO quality!

Hey, Page XX is an ST joke! ::sly And don't bring the quality question, especially when the other game can't seem to glue books right! ::tongue

There's also a handy-dandy chart for this as well! (But...I'm getting the feeling that you have an aversion for charts... ::tongue )....But, try explaining dice-pool splits to a new player, allowing for the difference between regular actions, reflexive actions, and defensive actions, and manuever modifications to those dice pools....

5) Yes - you know - when I was using my special ability... or was it an innate ability? or a supernatural ability? I want to do that again. Can't I? um... Can't I use an innate ability instead of a supernatural ability? no? oh bugger.

There aren't any special or innate abilities, so that should make your life easier...But, it doesn't matter because the only real difference between kinds of abilities is when some sort of dispelling effect applies...

6) Hang on - don't worry worthy players - in but a minute I shall calculate the threat factor of the twenty-three kobolds and the chihuahua that ye brave soles didst vanquish and from that fine figure shall I extract in all its glory the experience award from which each of ye fine fine (probably) gentlemen shall draw your just reward...

1) Again, handy-dandy chart...And since when did threat factor (an actual stat for us Shadowrunners BTW!) affect XP::bigsmile? Admittedly, though, this is a pain for the level-system, but still only takes a minute or two to do... As opposed to having to field the same questions re: How much does it cost to raise _____ ? for the fiftieth time...

2) And this is where my Palm Pilot shines::bigsmile...

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I was so planning to be a nice guy  ....

oh good ::tongue

It takes me about thirty minutes to create a character for either system (half that for comedy systems, and twice that for RuneQuest and Space Opera), and more experienced characters are actually easier because I'm not agonizing over feats and skills as long ("I can only have one???"). But then again, if it's taking you longer than that, then yeah, I can see why you hate the system; but next time, look at that neat little cheat sheet right at the start  ...

It takes me about an hour to come up with a character with the whole how what why who and for how much aspects. Then I start doing stats. In most games it takes me about 15 minutes to do the basic (human) stats regardless of 'level' and then some more time depending on how complicated the 'extras' are. D&D took considerably longer than that. Yes - I used the chart, but I'm sorry I had to read some stuff because there are lots.

Non-issue: D&D is set up along high-fantasy lines, which means that most wizards have limited fighting education, and fighters have little spell-casting experience. In those cases (stratified classes), a class/level system makes sense. In a less-stratified situation (where characters are expected to be jacks-of-all-trades) a more point-based system makes sense. It all depends on setting...

Since a points based system can emulate any and all of this without effort, why bother? Really? No Really?

Side Note: If you're a fan of high-combat cinematic games, then a level-system for non-fighters will probably grate even more because everyone has high levels of combat skill, which is in direct opposition to a level-system (where everything is set for balance)...

I'm a fan of highly freeform, high intrigue, low on page turning gaming. Mood is important and for that PACING is vital. (yes yes holes in carpet tee hee ::sarcasm). Actually, come to think of it - my D&D game (yes I do play it too - I just don't think D20 is a good system) has run since Christmas (a good 20 sessions perhaps) with the first actual combat occuring yesterday... On the other hand my Trinity group has been known to open up with coil guns at disturbingly regular intervals.

Combat isn't the point. Fear / Surprise / A fanatical devotion to the Pope - those are our 3 chief weapons. ::rolleyes

Hey, Page XX is an ST joke!

You don't say. ::sarcasm ::wink

And don't bring the quality question, especially when the other game can't seem to glue books right! 

You might want to read my post again. ::wink

There's also a handy-dandy chart for this as well! (But...I'm getting the feeling that you have an aversion for charts...  )

Charts are fine... as long as everyone who is using one has a photocopy in front of him / her / it.

....But, try explaining dice-pool splits to a new player, allowing for the difference between regular actions, reflexive actions, and defensive actions, and manuever modifications to those dice pools....

Wouldn't dream of it. When I have a new player I just judge their response to a situation and act accordingly. Which is perhaps where I differ from you. I don't want the burden of having to either know 40 charts off by heart as opposed to say 4/5 basic rules.

There aren't any special or innate abilities, so that should make your life easier...But, it doesn't matter because the only real difference between kinds of abilities is when some sort of dispelling effect applies...

Excuse me. ::blink

1) Again, handy-dandy chart...And since when did threat factor (an actual stat for us Shadowrunners BTW!) affect XP::bigsmile? Admittedly, though, this is a pain for the level-system, but still only takes a minute or two to do... As opposed to having to field the same questions re: How much does it cost to raise _____ ? for the fiftieth time...

Yup... Shadowrun - great game with a few too many rules... now finding players who know that system is pretty tough... where would they be? Here players players...

I thought XP award was based on threat... oh gosh darn... you've made me look in DMG... oh wait... page 165 and 166.. a chart... oh sorry... my mistake... it's called CHALLENGE rating not threat rating. how silly of me. ::crazy

And no... I have very little trouble calculating a 1 number times another number experience award - but most of the time I run progression rather than experience. Players tell me what they're working on... and when I get my grubby mits on their sheets I put up what I think they're getting better at based on what their characters are doing with special attention paid to their particular areas of interest. I don't care about 'game balance' I really couldn't care if Dorothy has ten more points than Roger. I care about story balance - the Wholeness and Validness of each character in itself and within the story - which I've always thought was the point behind the whole infantile 'balance' argument.

btw - I notice you're not touching the attacks of opportunity or use your brain and don't bother arguments... sigh... all too easy..

-Knave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I caught you sarcasm, why didn't you catch mine? ::bigsmile

Since a points based system can emulate any and all of this without effort, why bother? Really? No Really?

Why emulate at all? Why not do the real thing? ::bigsmile

Admittedly, this is more of a style difference; the more stratified the setting, the better I think level systems work, the more JOAT the better a point-based system works. Level systems also tend to do better with crunchy bits (because of a certain level of simplification), whereas point-based systems are better when you just need to get something up and going.

Also, different people tend to do better with different types of systems. A person who's better at concepts tend to do better with the point system, whereas more, um, tactical types do better with the level-system.

Obviously, I'm omiting Champs from this, but then again it devised by a couple of war-gamers to allow supers on a grid... ::bigsmile

Excuse me. ::blink

In your post you had a section where you messing around, acting like weren't sure when you could use a specific type of ability (in D&D terms, extra-ordinary, supernatural, spell-like, etc.). In actual play, the difference only matters when it comes to dispell effects, ie, dead magic areas, dispel magic, anti-magic attacks, etc. (There are some minor details, but those are minor.)

And, sorta on the subject, I actually like attacks of oppurtunity. They add an interesting wrinkle to tactics, as well as making some players think for a sec before they attack (always a welcome thing), and allow use of interesting tactics (taunting takes on a new level).

And no... I have very little trouble calculating a 1 number times another number experience award - but most of the time I run progression rather than experience. Players tell me what they're working on... and when I get my grubby mits on their sheets I put up what I think they're getting better at based on what their characters are doing with special attention paid to their particular areas of interest. I don't care about 'game balance' I really couldn't care if Dorothy has ten more points than Roger. I care about story balance - the Wholeness and Validness of each character in itself and within the story - which I've always thought was the point behind the whole infantile 'balance' argument.

If Dorothy contributes more, does more, and basically gets into it more than Roger, then she deserves to get more than he does. And its part and parcel of the system. She can then make her character however she wants. Players can also get XP Awards for role-playing, and for other miscellaneous things; this is just as true for a level-system as a point-system.

The whole "infantile 'balance' argument" is that, if two players have just as much fun, and contribute about the same to the campaign, but one chose a fighter and the other a mage, then both characters should have roughly the same amount of power; they should be able to compete just as well at Level 1 as Level 20. And I have no problem with that. Just as I like to see two characters with the same point totals in a point-based system. And that, again, is part and parcel of any good system.

From that perspective, D&D and the ST system are both excellent systems.

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they should be able to compete just as well at Level 1 as Level 20. And I have no problem with that. Just as I like to see two characters with the same point totals in a point-based system. And that, again, is part and parcel of any good system.

Give me a 20th level mage anyday... btw I usually only play firghters and divine casters, and I'd still take the 20th level mage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I caught you sarcasm, why didn't you catch mine? 

::blink Because your sarcasm wasn't a rebuttle to my sarcasm... it was a whole new bit of sarcasm so it needed a whole new bit of sacastic rebuttle. heh. I said butt... ::nervous

Why emulate at all? Why not do the real thing? 

Good point. Why not do the real thing? ::tongue

Also, different people tend to do better with different types of systems. A person who's better at concepts tend to do better with the point system, whereas more, um, tactical types do better with the level-system.

mutter... training wheels... mutter. oh well... to each his/her/its own. Please notice btw - I've never said D&D is nasty... I've only said this is why I don't like it. Consequently this is an argument you've had no hope of winning. btw is this a 1 minute or 5 minute argument?

In your post you had a section where you messing around, acting like weren't sure when you could use a specific type of ability (in D&D terms, extra-ordinary, supernatural, spell-like, etc.). In actual play, the difference only matters when it comes to dispell effects, ie, dead magic areas, dispel magic, anti-magic attacks, etc. (There are some minor details, but those are minor.)

The blink was because you contradicted yourself. You said there weren't different kinds of abilities - then you said the only difference between them was for purposes of dispelling - which is not quite right, the difference is DISRUPTING (ooh hoo another whole new important TM workd ::tongue) and also determines how much of a round they take up - eg if you can use the ability as part of another action, requires a whole round, can be reattempted if disrupted or is lost. So - regardless of how minor they are - they exist.

Attacks of opportunity are fine in concept - but why put them into system??? Are people silly enough not to realise that pulling a potion out of your backpack whilst surrounded by people with swords making nasty faces at each other will cause everyone to go for the exposed target???

The whole "infantile 'balance' argument" is that,

Oh no... he's going to explain - RUN FOR THE HILLS!!! EEEEEK! HOWL!!!!! ::crazy

they should be able to compete just as well at Level 1 as Level 20.

Here we go... you wrote it - but I suspect you missed it. Compete for what exactly? ::cool

-Knave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mutter... training wheels... mutter. oh well... to each his/her/its own. Please notice btw - I've never said D&D is nasty... I've only said this is why I don't like it. Consequently this is an argument you've had no hope of winning. btw is this a 1 minute or 5 minute argument?

Probably a one-minute, um, something....I thought this was more of a "thoughtful discourse on the differences between level- and point-based systems" than an argument.

BTW, if you'd ratchet the condascension down a notch, I think it could've been real fun....I appreciate the level vs ppoint thing has some hard-line defenders, and usually the "We are so much more mature than you" is the standard Great Argument against the level-based group. I'd like to think that I would have defended point-based gaming if someone had done the auto-reaction "I hate..." thing against WW...

Compete for what exactly?

Not necessarily a "I'm going to get more points than you thing", but more of a Darwin thing...Basically, a high-level fighter should be just as fun as a high-level mage. I recognize that the mage has a lot more personal power, but the fighter doesn't have to deal with the risks that that power brings. Also, for some reason, the more power a mage accrues the more he turns to just blasting his way through life, whereas the fighter tends more towards role-play (raising armies the hard way, or dealing with the problem through diplomacy). Interesting paradox, yah?

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats what I like to call the "inverse power perportion"

Mages start out insanley weak and become insanley strong.

fighters stay pretty much the same...just a steady increase of power.

Its interesting to say the least that a 20th lvl mage can kill someone with a word while the fighter has to sit there for rounds and smack people around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not as amusing as the guy that was the "Do we have to against the orcs?" is now blasting mountains with fervor, while the "CHARGE!" guy is now wanting to talk first... ::cool

'Course, that same wizard is going to want that fighter as soon as some demon princeling with decent magic resistance pops up and wants the wizard's head ::bigsmile ....

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a one-minute, um, something....I thought this was more of a "thoughtful discourse on the differences between level- and point-based systems" than an argument.

Lol... any discourse comprising two or more opposing points of view is by definition an argument

No it isn't! ::tongue

BTW, if you'd ratchet the condascension down a notch, I think it could've been real fun....I appreciate the level vs ppoint thing has some hard-line defenders, and usually the "We are so much more mature than you" is the standard Great Argument against the level-based group. I'd like to think that I would have defended point-based gaming if someone had done the auto-reaction "I hate..." thing against WW...

I'm sorry if you thought I was being condescending which I was to a point, but only because the argument requires it. How else do you argue the "I want rules to reflect every aspect of my gaming to (do what exactly? maximise realism? avoid disputes with munchkin gamers? ensure player power balance?) " vs the "You can't really need a rule for that - that's common sense that is" argument.

Every system of modelling reality, however complex, is flawed in some way and has to be compensated for - it's a question of personal preference how much freedom you're willing to sacrifice to do that - which, I might add, I've never disputed. You put forward your point of view. I put forward mine (with a good deal of self mocking irony I might add... ). You attempted to knock down each point. I defended them. No personal animosity involved. Further I don't think D&D is childish - ( although I do think d20 is a 'learner system' designed to stop you from 'breaking' your character. ) - I just don't like it because its overly rules heavy - not rules intense - just rules heavy. Maybe rules 'drag' is the best way of putting it.

Not necessarily a "I'm going to get more points than you thing", but more of a Darwin thing...Basically, a high-level fighter should be just as fun as a high-level mage. I recognize that the mage has a lot more personal power, but the fighter doesn't have to deal with the risks that that power brings. Also, for some reason, the more power a mage accrues the more he turns to just blasting his way through life, whereas the fighter tends more towards role-play (raising armies the hard way, or dealing with the problem through diplomacy). Interesting paradox, yah?

Not to put too fine a point on it, it's my belief that a character's enjoyability has very little to do with his or her level, but rather with his or her personality and circumstances. My attitude and gaming tends to reflect that.

As an example, I ask you this - do you think it would be more fun to play Divis Mal or Corbin?

The difference between this and saying would you rather play a 20th + extras Wizard or a 10thish Fighter, is massive. You know that Divis Mal can do anything he wants and is unstoppable, although people have tried. On the other hand you know that Corbin is based on David Beckham, can be a bit of a clown, and lives a life excitement. The fact that Divis could vaporise the footballer doesn't enter into it.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

-Knave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bahumut: Re: MR

I'd have to see the column (issue #?), but that so disregards the way it worked in the past...If the critter in question is caught in the blast, then the MR applies, but not if he gets caught in the resulting fire; inhalation and flame damage would potentially apply (unless he had some kind of fire resistance).

Knave:

Personally, I'd probably go Corbin. But then again, I like the sidekick characters ::bigsmile . However, I know that most players prefer their characters to be around the same power level as the other players' characters. Read: I agree that the fun has little to do with the character's level, but only if everyone else is at the same level, be it 1st, 10th or 20th.

That said, why the impression that D&D is the "training wheels" of the RPG set? I could put a better argument for WoD system...I've seen far more cheating and munchkinism with the various ST systems than with D&D, because of the lack of levels and the ill-defined powers. When someone tries to cheat in D&D, everyone sees it immediately; on the other hand, I've seen players claim ridiculous dice pools, commit acts of pretentiousness, and all this backed by some obscure rule.

It is worth noting that as much as D&D is part of the "geek" stereotype, WoD is part of the "art snob" stereotype. Are they valid stereotypes?

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knave:

Personally, I'd probably go Corbin. But then again, I like the sidekick characters  . However, I know that most players prefer their characters to be around the same power level as the other players' characters. Read: I agree that the fun has little to do with the character's level, but only if everyone else is at the same level, be it 1st, 10th or 20th.

Corbin is no-body's sidekick. He makes his own waves and I believe that he'd be a thoroughly enjoyable character to play. Divis on the other hand is more of a plot element than a character... boring as all hell. So more powerful / less powerful in and of itself does not equate to fun - we're in agreement.

Now - the only if the other characters are the same power question. You seem to admit that high level mages are more personally powerful than other classes, whilst low level mages are weaker. It would follow that you then admit that level does not equate directly to power. In fact I'd find it difficult to say that a 20th level rogue was as powerful as a 15th level mage. (Although personally I'd rather play a lvl 15 thief rather than a 20th Wizard - because having played D&D before with characters of around those level/ up to those levels / whatever - I know what I find to be fun). Anyway - now we have the agreed on concept that level has very little to do with a character's personal power. So - what purpose do levels actually serve? Really? Which brings us neatly to the next little issue.

That said, why the impression that D&D is the "training wheels" of the RPG set?

Training wheels. Why? Because the purpose of classes is to segregate characters into ability groups so that they are required to rely on each other and so that no single character has overreaching ability in all areas - in other words, as long as everyone picks a separate class no-one will tread on each other's toes and its easy to build a workable group with all the skills necessary to prosper. This is ENFORCED by the class system - this is why I call it 'training wheels'. People generally pick different skills for characters anyway without any need to artificially segregate them - so that's not really an issue. Also - in a purely skill based system- people can pursue the same 'path' in entirely different ways. For example two Psychokinetecs could both be true warrior's at heart. One of them might focus entirely on psi and the other on physical combat. Neither of them gets phyiscally any tougher from their focus - whilst a d&d warrior gets physically tougher as he goes up levels because his skill points / hit points / attacks are a function of his level. He can modify that - sure - but it's not a reflection of what he is doing. It's a nasty generalization.

I could put a better argument for WoD system...I've seen far more cheating and munchkinism with the various ST systems than with D&D, because of the lack of levels and the ill-defined powers. When someone tries to cheat in D&D, everyone sees it immediately; on the other hand, I've seen players claim ridiculous dice pools, commit acts of pretentiousness, and all this backed by some obscure rule.

You're assuming the goal of a system is to spot cheats? Now there's an aspect of a training system. If you're playing with a decent group you shouldn't care about people trying to 'cheat' or be munchkins. Play with people whose aim is to have fun. Repeatedly kill characters who try to cheat until their owners realise the truth. ::tongue Fun has nothing to do with being more any anyone else.

-Knave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corbin is no-body's sidekick. He makes his own waves and I believe that he'd be a thoroughly enjoyable character to play. Divis on the other hand is more of a plot element than a character... boring as all hell. So more powerful / less powerful in and of itself does not equate to fun - we're in agreement.

I was trying to make the point that I prefer playing characters that are less powerful than the other players, NOT that Corbin was a sidekick. However, he does seem to be just as much a plot element as Divis Mal (at least, that's how he's been used). However, most of my players would probably want to play to Divis Mal, and probably do a decent job at it....

You seem to admit that high level mages are more personally powerful than other classes, whilst low level mages are weaker. It would follow that you then admit that level does not equate directly to power.

1) High-Level mages aren't necessarily more powerful; they're just more willing to flaunt it ::bigsmile ....More accurately, they're really powerful in very focused ways, whereas a fighter is generally just powerful. Read: A wizard has to get in his kicks while he can, because he can only his magic so many times before depleting it, whereas a fighter can go all day. Another way to look at it is that the both can take out an army by themselves, the wizard is just going to do it faster.

2) You're two sentences contradict themselves. Basically, if a high-level mage is more powerful than a low-level mage, then how do you arrive at level not equating directly to power?

In fact I'd find it difficult to say that a 20th level rogue was as powerful as a 15th level mage.

Depends on how we're defining "power". If you're looking at it as "I can blow Target X away", then, well, yeah, you're right. If you're looking at it as "I can do what I want to do when I want it", then the high-level rogue has the advantage (after all, with Improved Evasion, 160+ skill points, the ability to avoid magical traps, and 16+ Dex, he can do any virtually any thiefly thing he wants, whereas the wizard is hoping he has that INT 17+ just to use his 7th level spells). Which I guess brings up the interesting question of just how you're defining power...

(Side Note: How is this argument intrinsically change if we changed it from levels to points, ie, a 500-point character with a skill/background focus vs a 400-point character with a power focus? Re: the overall argument of levels vs. points, where are you going with this?)

Training wheels. Why%

You're posts seem to imply that D&D is, well, less-developed than, say, WoD, and treat as a far simpler game than WoD, when I think I could actually make a good argument otherwise (support and settings I think would be a good case for D&D and against WoD, for example)...

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to make the point that I prefer playing characters that are less powerful than the other players, NOT that Corbin was a sidekick. However, he does seem to be just as much a plot element as Divis Mal (at least, that's how he's been used). However, most of my players would probably want to play to Divis Mal, and probably do a decent job at it....

Yeah - Corbin is a plot element in the setting, but you definitely get the impression that he's a 'real' person caught up in something too big for him. Aside from the Adventure letters Divis doesn't seem human - which is fair because he obviously doesn't see himself that way by the time adventure rolls around.

As you say - it can be a lot of fun to play weaker characters - so 'balance' isn't terribly important for fun. Games like Ars Magica don't even pretend to try to be balanced - which is really refreshing. So balance isn't a big deal which is a good thing - since it doesn't exist.

1) High-Level mages aren't necessarily more powerful; they're just more willing to flaunt it  ....More accurately, they're really powerful in very focused ways, whereas a fighter is generally just powerful. Read: A wizard has to get in his kicks while he can, because he can only his magic so many times before depleting it, whereas a fighter can go all day. Another way to look at it is that the both can take out an army by themselves, the wizard is just going to do it faster.

Ok.. here's a parallel. One character has 40 nova points total. 30 of the nova points go into soak and 10 of the nova points go into nukes. He takes out an army.

Another character has 10 nova points worth of mega socials. He also takes out an army.

The two characters are put into the same group. Which character is more powerful? And which one is more valuable?

There really isn't a right answer.

2) You're two sentences contradict themselves. Basically, if a high-level mage is more powerful than a low-level mage, then how do you arrive at level not equating directly to power?

Ahh normally that'd be a point to you - but your point was that levels somehow made characters of different classes 'balanced' - which you're now trying to wiggle out of. So I'll take that as yet another victory!!!!! ::tongue

Depends on how we're defining "power". If you're looking at it as "I can blow Target X away", then, well, yeah, you're right. If you're looking at it as "I can do what I want to do when I want it", then the high-level rogue has the advantage (after all, with Improved Evasion, 160+ skill points, the ability to avoid magical traps, and 16+ Dex, he can do any virtually any thiefly thing he wants, whereas the wizard is hoping he has that INT 17+ just to use his 7th level spells). Which I guess brings up the interesting question of just how you're defining power...

I define 'power' as effect on the world divided by effort required to produce the effect.

So - yes - a mage who can kill 50 people in one spell has a similar effectiveness to someone who can have 50 people thrown in the local dungeon with a look. The problem is that position isn't a factor of power and loads of lords of towns are level 2.

(Side Note: How is this argument intrinsically change if we changed it from levels to points, ie, a 500-point character with a skill/background focus vs a 400-point character with a power focus? Re: the overall argument of levels vs. points, where are you going with this?)

My point is and always has been that levels, classes and lots of rules are an unneccessary hinderance where time could be better spent on settings and personalities to make a world come alive. I think people shouldn't be so bothered about the need to buy 400 books/cards whatever just to get the hackmaster+12 rules - they should just make something up. They might surprise themselves.

-Knave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're posts seem to imply that D&D is, well, less-developed than, say, WoD, and treat as a far simpler game than WoD, when I think I could actually make a good argument otherwise (support and settings I think would be a good case for D&D and against WoD, for example)...

No. I like D&D. I like settings. I said I didn't like D20.

-Knave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example two Psychokinetecs could both be true warrior's at heart. One of them might focus entirely on psi and the other on physical combat. Neither of them gets phyiscally any tougher from their focus - whilst a d&d warrior gets physically tougher as he goes up levels because his skill points / hit points / attacks are a function of his level. He can modify that - sure - but it's not a reflection of what he is doing. It's a nasty generalization.

Yeah....But so is saying that two D&D fighters of the same level are capable of the same tricks. With almost a feat/level, and the range of feats available, I can make a fencer, a martial artist, an archer, or a pistol-specialist, all of whom have different capabilities. Throw in multi-classing, and you get the fireball-slinging fighter, priests with evade, and wizards in plate-mail. And that's before we even start talking prestige classes... D&D is probably the wrong level-based game to ignore in terms of customizing ability.

Ahh normally that'd be a point to you - but your point was that levels somehow made characters of different classes 'balanced' - which you're now trying to wiggle out of. So I'll take that as yet another victory!!!!! ::tongue

Sorry, but the example you used involved two mages different levels...I did quote you correctly, right? Entirely different than trying to compare two characters of the same level, different classes. Basically, had you used, say, a 20th level Fighter and a 20th Level Wizard, then I would have pointed out, again, that they are equal. Like I've done several times now....

My point is and always has been that levels, classes and lots of rules are an unneccessary hinderance where time could be better spent on settings and personalities to make a world come alive. I think people shouldn't be so bothered about the need to buy 400 books/cards whatever just to get the hackmaster+12 rules - they should just make something up. They might surprise themselves.

In this case, we agree. However, the Catch-22 is that rules are needed. D&D3E has no fewer or more rules than does the ST system, but it does tend to be more consistent than the ST system (check the difference in a shotgun between the Aeonverse rules). I also know that I can use the basic rules to be as customizable as a point-based character, and that the Golden Rule applies no matter what kind of system I'm playing with, which means that any system is as pliable as I want it (I could base spell-casting off a drain-type system rather than x spells/day system if I so desired).

Admittedly I have yet to read through Mutants & Masterminds, but I think the one system D20 would do horrible with is probably supers. Otherwise, I think it does well in almost every genre it has been tried with.

No. I like D&D. I like settings. I said I didn't like D20.

Why?

Believe it or not, "I just don't like it" is an acceptable answer. But, customization, simpler rules, and an "it's for beginners" attitude aren't....

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah....But so is saying that two D&D fighters of the same level are capable of the same tricks. With almost a feat/level, and the range of feats available, I can make a fencer, a martial artist, an archer, or a pistol-specialist, all of whom have different capabilities. Throw in multi-classing, and you get the fireball-slinging fighter, priests with evade, and wizards in plate-mail. And that's before we even start talking prestige classes... D&D is probably the wrong level-based game to ignore in terms of customizing ability.

Yeah, but why bother doing things by half measures? You're still advancing all at once (you can almost hear the DingDingDing!). Sure you can multi-class / get classes from other categories at bigger costs and things - but why bother with overly convoluted mechanics for doing it? Also - you don't have the refinement possible with pure skills. The FIGHTER class makes you good with weapons - even weapons you may not train in. Being a FIGHTER also makes you tough / quick / however you've decide to translate HP.

So how do you make a character who is a moderately powerful mage, but has a gift for fencing the equal of an even more powerful warrior, but is otherwise a bit of a clutz, and gets allergies and is overweight. Either you make a fighter with spells - in this case I'd say totally wrong, or you make a mage with every spare point into fencing - which I'd say is also wrong because it doesn't reflect the talent. Or you split the classes - with fighter 30% all the points into fencing speciality and the rest into wizard - which still ends up being a bit wrong given that you've now spent the 'super dooper beginning character points' in a different category from the one you meant to.

Not very satisfying in my opinion.

Sorry, but the example you used involved two mages different levels...

Please quote this example.

Basically, had you used, say, a 20th level Fighter and a 20th Level Wizard, then I would have pointed out, again, that they are equal. Like I've done several times now....

How are they equal?

Utility?: No way - Mage wins unless he has really really few spells.

Damage Dealing: Mage certainly deals damage faster to a larger number of enemies

Damage Taking: Depends on if the mage is expecting trouble - by the same token the fighter has to put on armour etc.

Commanding Armies: Tossup. Fighter's are traditionally more respected, but mages traditionally command fear and possibly undead/demons/ and most importantly information.

Most of the commanding stuff should be entirely a function of roleplaying anyway and SHOULDN'T in my opinion be a function of class. It should be more like "stories of the fearsome warrior, Rygar the thrice blessed, defender of It'ikichal, wielder of the dread sword 'Blood Price' bring awe, respect and fear to all who hear them in the land of Antorr. On the other hand the multi-schooled wizard and bureaucrat 'Bob' has the ear of King Sepphaeleous as he amuses the Princes royal with his antics.

General should fall before Specific every time.

In this case, we agree. However, the Catch-22 is that rules are needed.

Sometimes. Delays are never needed though. A lot of the time I say **** the rules - and the game is better for it - or I think so at least.

D&D3E has no fewer or more rules than does the ST system, but it does tend to be more consistent than the ST system (check the difference in a shotgun between the Aeonverse rules).

I disagree here. If it had fewer rules it wouldn't need 2 books to give you the 'basic rules' while the ST books give you the basic rules and the setting in one book. Also - in my opinion - the D20 rules are biased toward nitpickyness whilst storyteller rules are biased towards give em something in broad strokes that does the job.

I also know that I can use the basic rules to be as customizable as a point-based character, and that the Golden Rule applies no matter what kind of system I'm playing with, which means that any system is as pliable as I want it (I could base spell-casting off a drain-type system rather than x spells/day system if I so desired).

Always granted - but then you're house ruling which isn't and hasn't ever been the issue.

Admittedly I have yet to read through Mutants & Masterminds, but I think the one system D20 would do horrible with is probably supers. Otherwise, I think it does well in almost every genre it has been tried with.

Much in the way Microsoft hypes Windows features.

Why?

Believe it or not, "I just don't like it" is an acceptable answer. But, customization, simpler rules, and an "it's for beginners" attitude aren't....

I like D&D because I like to play fantasy settings occasionally. I dislike D20 for all the reasons mentioned. For me it doesn't work quickly enough, isn't specific enough and is overly constraining when it doesn't have to be. Whether or not you choose to accept my answer is immaterial because it is my answer.

-Knave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but why bother doing things by half measures? You're still advancing all at once (you can almost hear the DingDingDing!). Sure you can multi-class / get classes from other categories at bigger costs and things - but why bother with overly convoluted mechanics for doing it? Also - you don't have the refinement possible with pure skills. The FIGHTER class makes you good with weapons - even weapons you may not train in. Being a FIGHTER also makes you tough / quick / however you've decide to translate HP.

English Translation: There's a way to do what I want through the rules, but I'd rather argue that there isn't....

So how do you make a character who is a moderately powerful mage, but has a gift for fencing the equal of an even more powerful warrior, but is otherwise a bit of a clutz, and gets allergies and is overweight. Either you make a fighter with spells - in this case I'd say totally wrong, or you make a mage with every spare point into fencing - which I'd say is also wrong because it doesn't reflect the talent. Or you split the classes - with fighter 30% all the points into fencing speciality and the rest into wizard - which still ends up being a bit wrong given that you've now spent the 'super dooper beginning character points' in a different category from the one you meant to.

Note: I'd have to do the same for a Mage (as in, The Ascension). Basically, in any ST game, if I wanted a character with both fighting and spell-casting (or psionics, or whatever), he'd be weaker in either realm than someone who just fought or cast spells (or used psionics, or whatever). Y'know, that infantile balance issue...

How are they equal?

Utility?: No way - Mage wins unless he has really really few spells.

Damage Dealing: Mage certainly deals damage faster to a larger number of enemies

Damage Taking: Depends on if the mage is expecting trouble - by the same token the fighter has to put on armour etc.

Commanding Armies: Tossup. Fighter's are traditionally more respected, but mages traditionally command fear and possibly undead/demons/ and most importantly information.

Utility?: The mage should win...

Damage Dealing: Tie: Mage: A couple of big booms, then no more; Fighter: Can go all day doing respectable damage

Damage Taking: Tie: Mage can have better AC and damage immunity, but for limited time; Fighter: Overall better AC (when prepped), and can take a lot more damage; also Fighter can do this without magic

Commanding Armies: The Fighter actually has a small edge on the Mage (the Leadership feat is easier to get (due to large number of feats available), and can get some small pluses for not having "special abilities" or a familiar, plus he can spend his stat increases on Charisma with no penalty

Also, the fighter can do all these without setting off magic detectors or in dead-magic lands...Overall, I'd say the two were in balance...

General should fall before Specific every time.

Should, but any good tactician knows that someone specifically set-up for something will do better than someone who's a generalist...That's why most organizations award and recognize specialists...I mean, who would you prefer operated on you: A general practitioner or a specialist?

I disagree here. If it had fewer rules it wouldn't need 2 books to give you the 'basic rules' while the ST books give you the basic rules and the setting in one book. Also - in my opinion - the D20 rules are biased toward nitpickyness whilst storyteller rules are biased towards give em something in broad strokes that does the job.

Except that most of the room in the PG is for spell and equipment listings, not to mention some fiction and campaign stuff (like the gods), and the DMG is for more equipment listings, and giving examples and delineations of the rules; the latter would be so cool to see for ST products... As shown by the screens for either game, I can put most of the rules on a piece of cardboard about the size of three letter-sized pieces of paper...

An interesting (and different) POV on that last bit, BTW, which I think puts a lot of it into perspective: The D20 rules are basically complete (that nitpickiness), whereas the ST rules need a bit more (broad strokes that does the job). Who would you prefer do something for you: Someone who is detail-oriented, or someone who's just there to do the job?

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

English Translation: There's a way to do what I want through the rules, but I'd rather argue that there isn't....

btw. I love the way you put words into my mouth. Let me put some words into yours for a change.

Finbar: I like lots of rules.

Knave: I don't like lots of rules because X, Y Z.

Finbar: You must like rules. X, Y, Z are GOOD.

Knave: But I don't like X, or Y, or Z.

Finbar: You must like rules. X is Good. Y is good. Z is good. Rules are good. You're a cheat and of low moral character. Soon all your base are belong to us.

Knave: I don't care about rules or base Goddammit. Why are you still arguing with me.

Finbar: Rules are good. Be a slave to the corporation. Rules are good. X is good. Y is good. Z is good. Applying rules is the answer. Make more rules to go with your rules.

Knave: Goddammit why am I still arguing with you. I could have created 14 systems by now. **** me - I must be a bleeding idiot.

Finbar: Rules are mother. Rules are father. Apply rules to every situation. Rejoice in your rules child, but only in the ways specified by the rules.

Knave: MOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMY!!!!

Note: I'd have to do the same for a Mage (as in, The Ascension). Basically, in any ST game, if I wanted a character with both fighting and spell-casting (or psionics, or whatever), he'd be weaker in either realm than someone who just fought or cast spells (or used psionics, or whatever). Y'know, that infantile balance issue...

The point was - you get what you pay for. In class/level games you don't get exactly what you want. Worse - there's a bunch of ways that you might go about doing it - and none of them result in what you're after.

Damage Dealing: Tie: Mage: A couple of big booms, then no more; Fighter: Can go all day doing respectable damage

Real fights last seconds.

Damage Taking: Tie: Mage can have better AC and damage immunity, but for limited time; Fighter: Overall better AC (when prepped), and can take a lot more damage; also Fighter can do this without magic

Real fights last seconds.

Also, the fighter can do all these without setting off magic detectors or in dead-magic lands...Overall, I'd say the two were in balance...

Assuming the fighter isn't carrying anything magical. Both fighters and mages have nemisies.

Should, but any good tactician knows that someone specifically set-up for something will do better than someone who's a generalist...That's why most organizations award and recognize specialists...I mean, who would you prefer operated on you: A general practitioner or a specialist?

Exactly the point. You may have read fall to mean 'go first', but I meant it as 'lose to'.

Except that most of the room in the PG is for spell and equipment listings, not to mention some fiction and campaign stuff (like the gods), and the DMG is for more equipment listings, and giving examples and delineations of the rules;

Have you spotted the pattern yet?

As shown by the screens for either game, I can put most of the rules on a piece of cardboard about the size of three letter-sized pieces of paper...

Go ahead then.

Who would you prefer do something for you: Someone who is detail-oriented, or someone who's just there to do the job?

Putting it slightly differently. Would you rather have to explain to someone how to walk everytime you wanted them to fetch you a coffee, or would you prefer to say "Fetch me a coffee, peon." and have the aforementioned peon set about fetching it on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were nice, simple ways to do things that were perfectly in the rules. You keep saying that either a) there aren't (by disregarding the feats rules), or B) making seem like they were a lot more complex than they really were....

The point was - you get what you pay for. In class/level games you don't get exactly what you want. Worse - there's a bunch of ways that you might go about doing it - and none of them result in what you're after.

Again, there are simple ways to get what you want. Like a point-based system, however, you need to make compromises to get what you want. Bottom line: Rules are rules. It's just a matter of figuring which ones apply...

Real fights last seconds.

D20, like the ST system, is based on 3-sec turns...Also, only melee fights last seconds; in real life, fights can last minutes (there are exceptions, but as any re-enactor or military will tell you, the bigger the gun, the longer the fight....).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soon all your base are belong to us.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo!!!!! I can't believe you had to use cheats in the easiest of all Blizzard games... for shame. ::sleep

Both fighters and mages have nemisies.

Hehe rust monsters ::laugh .

Also, only melee fights last seconds; in real life, fights can last minutes (there are exceptions, but as any re-enactor or military will tell you, the bigger the gun, the longer the fight....).

Right ::confused 329 hit points and even with a moderate AC he's gonna be around for at least 5 rounds (excluding instant death effects) and when he does die, either your party's cleric or druid (that's right 2 classes) can, at relatively low levels, raise him; at higher levels resurect him. 7 health levels*, 7 wheather you've a starting character or a seasoned veteran with 150+xp under his/her belt. That's what I like about ST, and when your character dies only the highest rating in the healing powers can bring the character back and only within a very short time of death. It teaches you to be careful with your pc and to make it more versatile. Aberrant is the only game that doesn't stop at 7 health levels and since it's a game about superhumans, I think it's fair enough.

*8 with the huge size merit.

You know what? Forget it! Let's all get L5R rules and use them. ::ninja

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...i've only skimmed a small bit of this, but i'm gonna add my two cents anyhow.

to each their own.

both systems have their pluses and minuses. both will fit better for certain people.

when it comes down to it, it's up to the ST or the DM to make the game good. They are the ones who decide which rules are used and which rules are added. A good ST can make any gaming system with even the worst of setups playable, fun and enjoyable.

no one system is better than another, they're just different. i've played some games that i've been skeptical of and i had fun with every last one.... and mainly because our group has some excellent STs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw, but I was just starting to have fun... ::sneaky2

Aw well...

One last bad thing re: WW: Worth noting that they are becoming worse of a corporate monolith than D20 ever could be...Just check out a lot of their tactics over the last few years...

Also worth noting that GURPS is a good reason to not argue "but it's taking over"; it's a point-based system that does what D20 is doing, but is cheaper and was more pervasive...At least with D20 you don't need to buy the D&D corebooks...(of course, most people use GURPS solely for the reference books, but that's another issue)...

Point Systems in General: I tend to use them as "beginning games" for new players, especially the comedy games. "Hit points" and "levels" are big abstractions when you have no references to real life, but "big bag of points'' is easy...Go figure...

Also, the biggest, nastiest crunchy system in the universe is a point-based system: Champions (which, in just over 300 pgs. defines everything by various values and has all of maybe twenty pages of DM's advice, but otherwise little "soft bits"); I've actually seen Excel used for character generation and players with few fears run from it...But it's such a cool system...

Also, ST/WoD are good, but bad to use in comparing Point vs. Level or Point vs. D20...BESM or Anything Interlock (Mechton, CyberPunk, etc) would have been better for comparison purposes...

Also, don't get me going on issues we've had re: ST books ::sarcasm ...

Some actual bad things re: D20 (rassenfrassen fairness thing ::crazy ):

1) Lack of weapons capable of killing in one hit (good for pulp, but gets annoying otherwise);

2) Range Increments (simply because it's possible to hit someone half a mile away with a dagger...Not likely, but possible);

3) Having to wait to get things ::tongue (with point-based systems it's just a matter of having the points);

4) Encumberance (adds some realism, but bookkeeping re: ammo and magic items gets annoying);

5) Balancing races (always a fun sport, but ECL's have made it more...interesting);

6) Not a lot of backwards compatibility;

7) Sheer volume of material (DM's need to do a lot of reading to keep up/ahead of players in the same campaign so as to watch out for potential plot-holes (I'm not a big fan of the "Say No with no reason" Club...and most good ref's aren't, either);

8) A lot of index cards for spellcasters/psions;

9) Too many potentially weird combos (Read: Munchkinized for your discomfort...); and

10) A certain drow...

Just trying to show you that I'm not a total fanatic ::tongue ...

Bottom Line: Not liking a game is one thing...Disliking it as a knee-jerk reaction, however, is akin to bigotry ::sneaky2 ...

FR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayre:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo!!!!! I can't believe you had to use cheats in the easiest of all Blizzard games... for shame. 

huh?

Hehe rust monsters.

Tended by vampires. A nasty combination to put it mildly. ::tongue

Right  329 hit points and even with a moderate AC he's gonna be around for at least 5 rounds (excluding instant death effects) and when he does die, either your party's cleric or druid (that's right 2 classes) can, at relatively low levels, raise him; at higher levels resurect him.

At 6 seconds a round it's still only 30 seconds.

You know what? Forget it! Let's all get L5R rules and use them. 

L5R is cool. Like the setting more than the rules though... but that's normal ::tongue

Finbar

There were nice, simple ways to do things that were perfectly in the rules. You keep saying that either a) there aren't (by disregarding the feats rules), or B) making seem like they were a lot more complex than they really were....

You provide no counter examples at any point. Yes - it's perfectly possible that I'm ignoring some rule or other that makes a particular example possible - but if an amount of searching is required then my argument is supported. And notice I didn't say the rules were complicated - just that I didn't like the fact that there were so many of them or that they were so fine grained. All you might need to do to find a rule is find a chart - but you still have to find the chart. I far prefer just making things up when I don't know the answer. In finely grained systems this can annoy players. In systems with more leeway - GMs have more leeway.

Again, there are simple ways to get what you want. Like a point-based system, however, you need to make compromises to get what you want. Bottom line: Rules are rules. It's just a matter of figuring which ones apply...

sigh.

D20, like the ST system, is based on 3-sec turns

Unless I'm remembering incorrectly D20 is based on 6 second turns.

in real life, fights can last minutes (there are exceptions, but as any re-enactor or military will tell you, the bigger the gun, the longer the fight....).

Running fights can last a long time. Fights where opponents actually connect a bit tend to be pretty darn quick.

Go ahead then.

Do you actually have these wondrous devices? I don't doubt their existence - just their completeness and the size of their type.

Bottom line though. You agree that D20 has more finely grained / more detailed / more nitpicky rules than storyteller for example. (Storyteller hardly being a perfect system, but then what is?). You also claim that D20 has no more rules than Storyteller. If both of these statements are true then the following statement must also be true.

* D20 cannot do all the things ST can do

Yeah...D20 has more info on its crunchy bits, ST has a lot of writing errors. Notice how many times a lot of arguments on this forum have been caused by simple editing issues...

D20 undoubtedly places more emphasis on rules. D20 - particularly D&D is produced with far better quality control. I wouldn't dream of disputing that. Quality control however makes for a quality product, not necessarily an inspired one.

Sorry...What was I supposed to have noticed? Oh yeah...The inherent superiority of the ST simplicity...

The fact that you like rules and rules explanations and I don't.

Followed by a...WTF? Sorry...Any good systems of rules will always explain how to do it. Outside of demonstrating a bit of arrogance on the part of the supervisor ("peon"?), you've done nothing to help the situation. The person in question needs to know where the coffee is, what you like in it, and how to find a lawyer for the inevitable lawsuit...

::tongue The peon would be dead if it didn't know how I liked my coffee. Peon knows important things like how to walk, how to work a coffee machine. I've told it how I like coffee - now it can do that on its own without need to reference a coffee making manual.

Again, I don't mind a general dislike for the system...That's one thing. My problem has been the knee-jerk reaction to hate the system, simply because it's the oldest system on the market.

1) If it was a knee-jerk reaction I wouldn't play it at all.

2) Its not the oldest system on the market. D&D is the oldest setting on the market. D20 is NOT D&D.

D&D has learned a lot from its early years, and will continue to do so.

3) D&D learned a lot from the Marketting Magisters over at WotC.

Just as White Wolf does (just wish it would learn faster ).

4) White Wolf are obviously knob heads for cancelling the best bunch of games to come out of their games 'studio'. Pah - profit. Who cares about steeeking profit!

Outside of some adolescent need to rebel against authority, I have yet to see a good argument why the system should be nailed to a wall...

Neither do I. I've played D&D for 17 years now - every edition since basic. I've seen D&D bashing fasions take off and die as D&D defending fashions took over. I've seen pretentious ST loving fashions take over and die in turn.

All I'm saying is that after all this time I don't like certain aspects of D20. Not because its D20 or linked to D&D - but because I don't feel I want to bother with certain things any more - not because I'm better than whoever does want them, but because they don't suit me. If others hear me and feel similarly or differently more power to them.

Your assuming that I'm having some sort of 'reaction' to D20 is offensive.

I think I'm pretty much tired of hearing how great the ST system is, even though I have yet to see a single WW game that could do with a better editing job

It's not perfect. Suits me better than d20 though.

Anonimity

to each their own.

And everything is relative. Truisms so blatant that I'm surprised people still bother with them.

no one system is better than another, they're just different. i've played some games that i've been skeptical of and i had fun with every last one.... and mainly because our group has some excellent STs.

Granted, but certain things are certainly better for certain people. Causing said people to like those things.

Finbar

One last bad thing re: WW: Worth noting that they are becoming worse of a corporate monolith than D20 ever could be...Just check out a lot of their tactics over the last few years...

True - also worth noting that D&D is doing better now that WotC are being LESS all controlling than TSR used to be.

Also worth noting that GURPS is a good reason to not argue "but it's taking over"; it's a point-based system that does what D20 is doing, but is cheaper and was more pervasive...At least with D20 you don't need to buy the D&D corebooks...(of course, most people use GURPS solely for the reference books, but that's another issue)...

GURPS does seem to take a slightly different approach to D20 though. GURPS seems to willingly mould GURPS towards the system its mimicking rather than mould the system into itself. Consequently there are millions of supplements. Actually some of the GURPS setting histories and stuff is amazing!

Also, the biggest, nastiest crunchy system in the universe is a point-based system: Champions (which, in just over 300 pgs. defines everything by various values and has all of maybe twenty pages of DM's advice, but otherwise little "soft bits"); I've actually seen Excel used for character generation and players with few fears run from it...But it's such a cool system...

Now FUZION champions I quite like for some reason although admittedly I've only actually played one game of it. Probably because it's configurable enough to suit any genre. It's a clever system.

tired now...

-Knave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...