Lancer

You are definitely right about that. Fallout was released in 1997 whereas 3E and d20 came out in 2000.

Bah! d20 modern is nothing like SPECIAL. There are no cross-class skills, classes, or silly Attacks of Opportunity in SPECIAL. SPECIAL, as a whole, was a system designed with roleplaying and combat in mind whereas d20's emphasis is (and has always been more than any edition of AD&D) mainly on combat (not including DM modifications). There are also no AP or "hit location" rules with d20 modern and a lot of d20 modern's feats and skills can't be translated to SPECIAL's perks and skills without heavy modification.

Does anyone know where you can get the fan-made SPECIAL system for Fallout PnP?

You *GO* Girl!!!I like you!!!! :D (w00t) AD&D rulz.

Yeah, that sounds familiar. Just a few hours ago I read a review discussing what you say here regarding creatures with high toughness values...I must I have read the same review you did. RPGnet review: Savage Worlds His was the only lukewarm review of the game, however, (though he admits he had problems with SW more due to personal preferences than because of faulty mechanics) as the rest of the reviewers gave it mostly 4/5 and and 4/4. Right now I am debating whether to use FUZION or Savage Worlds for my P-A game(though I am certainly open to other recommendations). And I would love to let you know how it goes when I finally get the time to work on this!

After realizing that there are very, very few options for a PA game that is similar to "Fallout," I am starting to lean more and more towards just making my own post-apocalyptic game. I have heard good things about a cinematic universal roleplaying system called "Savage Worlds." I am considering using these rules (if not, then FUZION or FUDGE) though I haven't purchased it yet. Has anyone ever tried making their own setting with SW? How is it? Do you think it would work for a post-apocalytic game similar to Fallout or do you think others (like FUDGE or FUZION) would be better? Let me add that I like quick, efficient combat and not very keen on excessive realism (GURPS) and prefer spending most of my time on fleshing out the setting.

Like most posters here.. Robes because they don't restrict force powers and I just *love* "force jump!"

I guess I am not mad since I prefer to think I like both equally .. Maybe I am just semi-mad. How unfortunate.

I enjoy class-based systems because they are nice for providing a basic template from which you can get ideas. Then you fill in the details to round off your roleplaying character. This approach is especially good if you don't know ahead of time EXACTLY how you want your character to be like but have a basic idea. Skill-based character creation is neat because you can make any type of character (theoretically but not necessarily true in practice) that you wish to create. There are no barriers or restrictions be it from class, race, profession, skills, magic..etc. I think this approach works best when you know EXACTLY how you want your character to be like. The way I see it they are both very good for different purposes..And a good GM can use either one effectively regardless of their weaknesses. And I just realized that I opened up another can of worms. HAHA

Doesn't that just prove that skill-based and class-based systems BOTH rule? :D

Cheap shots are fun to take. I tend to torture my PCs as much as I can As an interesting aside... How did Ludwig and your ranger PC become arch enemies? What is the backstory on that if you don't mind.

I personally have always loved the fact that everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses and that nobody can be good in everything. I like how (in AD&D) all the PC classes complement one another. This forces the group to rely on one another and it makes it easy to spotlight a particular PC from time to time. This is not to say that I force my players to make a thief character, but, it would certainly make their life a bit easier. It would just take extra creativity on the players' part (maybe a bit of diplomatic tact; magic) to get out of certain situations. Or, I can always add in a thief NPC into the mix. From my impression of Enderwggin's post, it wasn't that he didn't really want the thief character and it had been forced upon him.. It was that he wanted to try a thief but the DM did not take measures to make playing thieves enjoyable in his game. That doesn't have anything to do with shoddy game design.. just shoddy DM design :D I was wondering about this myself..

HAHA.. So you are a daredevil in your games but not in real life

You totally read my mind. I was about to mention this that you can incorporate terminal velocity concepts and perhaps have exponential increasing damage the closer you get to it... IIRC, GURPS has some good rules on falling damage.

I agree with you here entirely. I had always felt that the three main classes all had their uses in combat (Fighter and Clerics for melee, Mages for spell-casting)whereas the thief's role within the party wasn't as obvious at times. I did incorporate slight modifications for the thief class to make it as "useful" as the other classes including minor backstab modifier adjustments, the ability to use Move Silently the same time as Hide in Shadows, and a couple of special abilities..etc More importantly, there are many adventures in my campaigns where a certain degree of "stealth" is required.. Missions where having a thief PC would be extremely useful.. If not vital. For example, I can have the thief PC sneak into an enemy encampment to retrieve some important documents or if the PCs have been captured by authority or the bad guys, none other than the thief has a reasonable chance of getting the party out of trouble. Along the same vein , a thief PC would be "especially" useful during a war in between battles when he can attempt to steal enemy battleplans and positions... Not to mention that I do give the thief a good XP bonus as a reward for proper roleplaying in this manner. So ,yes, I do take into consideration trying to incorporate the thief class as much as the others. I especially made it a point that playing thieves in my campaigns should be a lot of fun! Well, you can always increase the lethality of falls and totally abandon that 1d6 per 10 feet rule.

I am shocked that they shut down my topic on "How you DM/GMs find players for your campaigns?"... I didn't think there was anything in there questionable or out of line. The discussion wasn't near over either..

Daggerfall and games like it are dubbed exploration RPGs and are a different breed altogether from your more story-driven (PS:T, Arcanum, KOTOR1) and action RPGs (Icewind Dale, Diablo..etc)with emphasis being placed on total freedom to interact physically with the gameworld (which is absolutely freaking HUGE BTW!) and total non-linearity to do and explore anything in whatever way, manner, or order you see fit. In fact, you can choose to ignore the main storyline and get sidetracked as much as you want. Unlike games like PS:T, you don't play these type of RPGs for the story so much as you play them for the interactive experience with the gameworld. The most similar modern game to it right now is Morrowind (and soon Oblivion) which are its sequels all made by Bethesda. These games along with Arena are part of the "Elder Scroll" series All these games are played in a first person perspective.

HAHAHA.. :D The way you post Volourn, with all the comments done in such a humorous tone.. So funny! LOL!

Xenogear's gameplay wasn't the best (still better than Xenosaga's) but then again, most console RPGs are little more than repetitive button-mashers compared to their more strategic computer RPG counterparts(particularly the turn-based computer RPGs). Regardless, Xenogears had 10x the script, music, storyline, enjoyment as Xenosaga.

Uhhh... yeah.. Xenosaga <_< I thought Xenogears(Ep. 5) on the PS1 was one of the greatest japanese style RPGs ever made. When I heard that Xenosaga Ep. 1 was in the works it didn't take long before I had it in my hands. The move from Square to NAMCO meant a different development team though I still wanted Xenosage Ep.1 under the false pretense that it was Ep.1 of the Xenogears storyline..Well, it ended up being an "alright" game but far below the standards set by Xenogears.. And then I heard that the new folks of NAMCO's Xenosaga series ditched the original Xenogears storyline and are working on an alternative timeline. Needless to say, I won't be buying Ep.2 or any of its sequels...

Yep, that is why you don't play it and I don't blame you. AD&D is not for everyone (for that matter nor is any system) and you did the right thing in pursuing other systems. I would have done the same had I your particular set of peeves. But you can't assume that everyone else has the same gripes with RPGs as you do. I for one don't have a problem with the "problems" you mentioned here. As for twinking, as someone else humorously remarked, the DM needs to be the smartest person in the room . Some of you preach skill-based systems like the be-all and end-all to roleplaying. I must admit I *do* like *some* of them but man I have seen many I like less than AD&D. Ultimately, to me it is about the setting and not the system. And I pride myself for being able to make the ruleset a non-factor in the enjoyment of my game. BTW, kits are perfectly optional. I hardly ever use them. Not to mention that this same critique(prestige classes) as well as all the other core problems you mentioned are *still* applicable to 3E. It still has hp. It is still class-based, experience is still tied to combat , you can twink.. you can powergame more than ever before..etc Many believe the Ranger class is unbalanced in 3E (and mages are more powerful than ever), and from what I remember this point has some merit. So again this begs the question is 3E *truly* better than 2ndEd. My answer is a reverberating "no." As for my game.. My experience system isn't tied only to combat like 3E is. Class balance? I haven't had a problem with it. So why the heck would I switch to a system that doesn't address problems I long resolved with my antiquated 2ndED ruleset? And what is the point discussing the "weaknesses" of 2ndEd when nobody plays it using only the core rules? It is like preaching to the choir.

You must want some crazy characterization. And that's the crux of the matter here. I am confident that my system can do what I want it to do whereas you can't get the system to work for you the way you want it. This is probably attributable to your preference for skill-based systems and to the fact that you are even pickier than me but regardless.. It all comes down to tastes. And ultimately it is virtually futile to argue about the problems with 2ndED when none of us plays it by the original rules anyways. Especially when a lot of us have solved a lot of its problems via house rules and some of us don't have any problems whatsoever with AD&D being class-based either.

Even if there is no immediate danger of retaliation when your Level 17 character slays the hapless villages there are the legal repercussions that would make a player think twice. A 17th level fighter who does this would incur the wrath of the local Baron, Duke,King, Emperior (whatever) and soon the empire's best assassins will be sent down the player's throat in no time. Not to mention other terrible things might happen like being hunted by bouny hunters, excommunication, banishment, loss of favor by the Gods, curses, holding loved ones ransom or killing them outright, being captured and losing limbs...etc I think these are realistic results which don't serve to suspend belief. A high level character can certainly wipe out an entire community of villagers but would need to weigh the consequences of his actions. Trust me.. The threat *is* there in my 2ndEd campaign. With my rules? LOL. And you can't just look at combat as if you put all these characters in a caged death match. Even feeble creatures like orcs and goblins are very tactical and small communities of them would devise traps and use the environment to their advantage that if done well enough can make a high level character sweating bricks. You are right.. In a PnP game(unlike movies and CRPGS) because of ALL the choices given and the lack of visual flair, it is the responsiblity of the DM to portray this world in a realistic enough fashion to the players. My suggestions above are realistic responses to the scenarios you posed. And you can do the above without changing the AD&D rules at all.

My funnest gaming moment for my PCs was achieving Name level in Mystara in which they were able to become lords and run dominions. Determining castle designs and specs was extremely fun as was the construction process itself. And finally getting that castle done and having your own permanent physical mark on the geography of Mystara was the most satisfying feeling of all. The ability to raise an army and war against your neighbors and directly affect the political spectrum.. What else could you ask for? It was great watching them instead of copoerating with each other COMPETE with one another to determine who was able to forge the largest empire.. HAHA! And to this day makes me realize how diverse Mystara is compared to TSR's more plain vanilla fantasy settings that only have two main modes of play.. Dungeon crawling and traveling between locales.

For the sake of the hobby.. Pray that the competition is never put away.