MrBrown

Oh, I agree completely with that. I guess I worded my original post badly. It's more about getting to the (agreed-upon) "point of the game" and avoiding drifting, than forcing something to someone. Just for the record, I didn't suggest so (and never would; I consider GM judgement of player decisions to be pretty bad form in just about any case.)

Ok, a Riddle of Steel Spiritual Attributes conversion to d20... This thing doesn't really work, it's just an example. 1. Get rid of other experience awards. Totally. Shoo shoo. And tune down the loot, maybe 2. Get rid of alignment. Alignment is "staying in character", and is only in the way of moral judgementing. Define a set of Spiritual Attributes for each character. RoS has 4, picked from several types, mainly Destiny, Drive, Faith and Passion. They need further definition, such as a specific character might have "Drive: Become a general of the Army", or "Passion: Love for his family". Each attribute has a score from 0 to 5, starting at maybe 1 or 2 for each. They work like this: 1. Whenever the PC does something that any of the spritual attributes "apply" (to be defined, but for instance the love-for-family guy defending his family) to, the player adds the attributes as a bonus to his rolls (in D&D, mainly to-hit, skills, damage, AC, saves and spell DC). If more than one apply, they stack. 2. Each "scene" (to be defined) that the above happens, the player adds a single point permanently to all all SA's that applied. If the PC does something against his SA, it is lowered by one point. 3. The player can, at any time, permanently take a point away from any SA and gain an amount of experience (maybe 100 to 200) that applies immediately. 4. Whenever an SA is at 0 (such as from the use of #3), the player can change it. For instance, Passion: Love for family to Passion: Love for homeland. #3 and #4 are crucial. In actual play, you do this: Let's say you have two characters with the following SAs: John: Faith: The King. Passion: Love for Maria, the daughter of Baron Vodstok. Bob: Faith: The King. Drive: Become a noble. Then in play, the GM does something like these: - The King orders Baron Vodstok and his immediate family beheaded for treachery. - The King disbands all nobility, and turns to true dictature. - Baron Vodstok offers to take Bob as part of his family, if he takes his daughter in marriage. ...And what you get is mechanically supported decision making that completely defines the reward system. Or more appropriately, a drama-driving mechanic. In each of those examples, the characters must make a choice between their SAs, AND they get points no matter what they choose... As long as they DO make the choice. And in Gromnir's setting... Tiki-tiki Too-too the Thri-Kreen has: Faith: Unethically Produced Commodities are of the Devil, and not-to-be-used. Passion: His pack. And then Gromnir says: "Someone in your pack has a disease that can only be cured with UPC!". And Tiki-tiki must choose whether to abandon his morals or his love, AND he gets points whichever he does. What the GM does here is called a "bang", btw. In these kinda of games, the GM just needs to keep banging.

If I did think those points were already clear, I wouldn't make them, would I? The key point here is moral judgement; it's not "just" player decisions. But... But... Theory is too beautiful to be soiled by actual play! Seriously, I don't see much to make specific examples about. Gromnir's problem: "Players do not make moral judgements". The answer: "Reward them for it, and they will". Duh. Unfortunately, I don't remember any related reward systems that would be free and online... I'll need to dig up, or maybe make a crude d20 version of the Riddle of Steel one. Oh, one thing though. Watch out for "Over before it even started": Making the moral judgement the game is supposed to be about (or is it? At least I'm assuming it is, from the post) seems to take 5 seconds time, and that's before Gromnir gets to say "you're at this tavern...". Gromnir: "The world is completely dependant on the Unethically Produced Commodity. But, a revolution is starting, to rid the world of this past. Which side do you choose?" *5 seconds* Players: "Ok, were the revolutionaries!". *End moral decision making, begin "staying in character".*

To get player's to make moral decisions, you need to: - Reward it uniquely. That is to say, no other mechanic brings the same rewards as making moral decisions does. Or, make it the only reward system. - Take GM judgement out of it. Player's can't make moral judgements if some outside authority dictates one is "right" and some other is "wrong". This applies to reward mechanics as well as in-world events. A few more points: - Reward systems are what RPGs are about. Determine your focus, and then wrap the reward system around it. Besides increase in character effectiveness, rewards can also be narrative power, or social ones. - World/physics simulation doesn't lead to moral decisions. You need a system for it. Seriously. At least a reward one. - "Roleplaying", as it is commonly understood as "staying in character", does not lead to making moral judgements. "Staying in character" is being static; moral judgement is all about change. For an example of reward systems and mechanics on "moral judgement", you could check out the Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel. They're all about answering "what is worth fighting for?".

Agree with the above. Happens to everyone, IMO. Another pit trap is to start thinking "why can't they make great games like game A anymore", always comparing new games to that game, not willing to accept how some new game might be great in it's own way.

FF12? Yeah, 12 (not 10-2). It came out in Japan a month or so ago.

Final Fantasy XII and X. Geneforge 3 ... I haven't updated my computer in 5 or 6 years, haven't had the chance to play any newer PC games.

Agreed. It's not only AC that does that though, D&D 3E seems to do a complete turn around when getting to high levels from low. Different things start to matter. It's weird.

Don't see any reason they need to. You just need a rules set designed for the type of playing you want to conduct. If you want drama, then you need a drama driving mechanic. A system that only has rules for stuff like how to hit opponents and skills checks will bring about drama only accidentally. In other words, very rarely. D&D 3E is designed to do this. Secondary attacks wouldn't make much sense unless it became alot easier to hit opponents. I'd say high level characters rely more on HP though, as that keeps going up more than melee damage (spells are another thing, though...).

I don't care if 3e, or any system for that matter is "extensive". What matters to me in a system is that it is coherent in what it is trying to do, not that it answers all my prayers. Why would you want all chocolate bars to taste the same? I'm personally unable to find any "d20 foundation" anywhere. All of them seem to be just variants of the same system, or at the least, based on a similar resolution mechanic (add stats roll d20 compare to DC). It's basically just a marketing gimmick, IMNSHO. Certainly. But this requires two things - For the designers to make a system that is internally coherent (in other words, that it doesn't try to achieve a different type of game with rule A than it does with rule B), and for the users to realize what type of game the system is trying to achieve. If both of this do not happen (to at least some extent), then the user will be on a wild goose hunt with his houserules. No, I don't prefer gamism, nor have I said I do (I certainly don't mind playing it, though). I'm simply claiming it is the type of gaming D&D is aimed at, or rather, the one it best supports regardless of what designers intended to do. I probably wouldn't mind this happening in a gamist RPG (especially in a CRPG, which are mostly very gamist indeed), but I wouldn't consider it a very elegant thing either. Mostly because it is something where both reward and plausability are easy to implement, if the system can be worked from the ground up. As I see it, it wouldn't be a flaw, just lackluster design.

BTW, recommend RPG-theory reading: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/ and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ These both have to do with distinctions in playing styles. The 2nd is more of an in-depth variant of the 1st one. Even if you don't agree with all of them (I certainly don't), they are very enlightening reading.

Indeed. I wasn't trying to say the rules system is necessarily perfect. However, whether or not something is flawed or not would require one to know what it is trying to achieve in the first place. I only have hands-on experience with Basic D&D, core 2e AD&D and the majority of 3ed. IMHO, despite alot of differences in detail, the assumed creative agenda is mostly the same. I also think 3ed D&D is pretty inflexible. D20 is too, at least when it comes to trying different kinds of settings. I would rather say that the rules are a tool in trying to achieve a creative agenda (which can be generally described as "what your game is about"). Not the only one, but an important one. The agenda is the primary goal however, so it doesn't matter as much what tool (rules) is used, as long as it achieves the agenda. I agree with your second paragraph pretty much, I've also had bad experiences in similar situations. Well, I wouldn't mind talking about the game with your specific house rules if I knew what they were... But person B playing by the same ruleset might not have the same houserules, and might have alot more of them. So it is kinda futile to talk about your and person B's games with the name of the original system, since there's a big chance that your houseruled ones are widely different. It all comes down to "perfectness" being a guestion of preference.

Certainly. Yes, because I don't think it's a guestion of preference. The rules are a means to an end. What end someone is trying to achieve with them for their game is up to preference, but the effectiveness of the rules as written in achieving this is arguable. Also, you are misinterpreting the argument. The fact that you have problems with the D&D rules is proof that they are not a good tool in achieving the type of playing you're trying to do. You are simply arguing this is because it's an imperfect system, while I'm saying it's because it is a tool meant for a different kind of job. It is not about what kind games you or I play or prefer. As I said before, anyone can play the game anyway they want, but if their playing style differs from the one the rules are intended for (and they don't houserule), they might end up with problems like you are having. That doesn't change the game that is being run, it just might bring out problems with it. In other words, not all D&D-games being played are gamist, but those that are not have the chance of getting incoherency problems, like the ones you are having. The same could happen trying to play in gamist way in a non-gamist system. If the rules were really secondary, then why the need for houseruling? If people didn't care about the rules that much, then there'd be no need to houserule them. What I think you're really saying with this is that adhering to the rules as they are written in the books is not a primary concern, and with this I agree. However, this brings us back to what I said in my previous post about the futility of talking about any specific system if you have to assume an undetermined amount of houserules.

(I'll try getting the code to work this time...) An alternative way to look at it is that it's rule incoherence; one part of the rule implies it's one thing, and another part implies it's something else. There's no way I or anyone can claim that the sentence "D&D is not competitive" isn't saying what it is, so the only worthwhile discussion is in whether the rest of the books conform to this sentence or not. That sentence alone certainly does not mean they automatically do. What you are basically saying here is that all RPGs are happen in an imagined world something like our own. This is certainly true (or at least, I haven't seen any RPG that doesn't assume that). It is, again, a question of whether you prioritize the plausability of this world or not. More on the rules below. The soccer thing is more of a metaphor (or whatever that word is) than a comparison. This is certainly true, but it is pointless to discuss the rules of a specific RPG if we have to assume any unspecified amount of unspecified house rules. Any game (RPG or not) can be houseruled to anything, and at some eventual point to an extent where it simply is nothing like the original game. So any worthwhile discussion of "the rules of D&D" will have to assume playing by the book, or extremely close to so (or with a specified set of house rules.) As I said before, the method does not matter. A session that is all about diplomacy can be as competitive as a session of killing orcs, it again depends on the focus. Furthermore, a game that would reward the PCs more experience for defeating their enemies than sneaking behind them might or might not be a gamist game. It depends on what the game is about. If the PCs are actually trying to get past the enemies for whatever reason, then simply doing that means they've won and should be rewarded. If the PCs have no reason to avoid their enemies (no other agenda) and still do so, then they've forfeited the game, and get no reward... But no penalty (loss of life, for instance) either. (There is certainly GM arbitration needed here, but so is there in any system.) Arguments that the PCs should get a better reward for engaging in combat are often based on plausability ("combat is more dangerous, they should get more xp", "they learn more stuff in combat", etc.), not gamism. I'm not saying this is what you're claiming, but I'm certain you have seen arguments like that before. Similarly, if the thief decides to steal the blacksmith's fancy sword, then he is partaking in the game, where the prize is the sword (and maybe some xp), and the penalty is getting into jail (or getting your hand cut off). These are yet again stuff that can happen in any game; the question is also yet again about whether the game focuses on the competitiveness (win/loss/prize/penalty) or doesn't. Gaining XP itself doesn't make the XP system of an RPG gamist (much less the whole system, which has alot more to it anyway), it's the reason you gain it for. If you gain it because you won an encounter, that's gamism. If you gain it because it's plausible that you learned something, then that's realism/simulationism/plausibilism/whatever. And, yes, often these lead to gaining XP in the same instances. You still fail to understand the word "prioritization". The "whale in the desert" is a bad example, because it is a case where the plausability is not in contradiction with gamism. If, in a gamist session, the PCs are travelling through the desert and are going to have an encounter, the GM can as well throw a band of hostile nomads/asabi/sand demons/sand worms/whatever at them. Why? Because it gains the game both gamism and plausability, while a whale (or any opponent that is not plausible to be there) only gains the gamism. The Wizard with 500 iron golems is closer to a better example, because there might be a reason where 500 iron golems offers a better game than something else. However, even such a situation can be easily replaced with something that offers the same game and more plausability (like more wizards working on the golems). It is easy to throw out the contradiction, unless there's more specifics to the situation. Again, a coherent gamist RPG game is when you choose gamism over plausability when they are in contradiction. It does not mean you throw out plausability whenever you can.

(For some reason I can't get BB code to work in my posts... duh.) Ah, okay. So the GM is competing with the players, since he playes that opposition, thanks for clearing that up... I don't agree, but hey... Read again. Highlighted for convenience. Actually it is - you've actually even said so yourself, when you admitted that D&D rules say they are not competitive. The books do indeed say so, but the rules represent something completely different. A bicycle salesman might tell me he's selling cars, but that doesn't affect what I see before my eyes much. [sigh] Time for another round of "I think", I suppose... Exactly whose opinion and experience am I allowed to speak from if not my own? I'd like to know, since my experience as a player of two decades and GM of nearly as much (in D&D) is obviously not good enough to consider... The existing rules are not a question of opinion. You can certainly play it anyway you want, but when you assume you're playing something different than what the rules represent, you end up with problems like you are having (in your case, problems with plausability). To use another metaphor, it's like two soccer teams agreeing they're just playing a game to see who can do the best ball tricks, but still giving the team who makes the most goals 100,000,000$ and a ticket to the finals. Your problems with plausability are akin to a player complaining to the FIFA that soccer the game should have been just about ball tricks. The way to deal with this, is to agree to play for goals (changing your playing style to match that of the rules), or take away the prize (change the rules to match your playing style). That makes one more than you... As I've said before, the game rewards those who min/max their characters and attempt to defeat their oppisition, therefore it's a gamist RPG. The reward and experience rules are the proof. It has nothing to do with preference. To go back to the soccer example, you might like to play soccer just for the ball tricks, but that doesn't matter much when you play in the league, and by their rules. I didn't create the rules; whether I like them or not has nothing to do with what they are. The books don't. Which still doesn't change what the rules are. All RPG system have competitiveness, is just whether they prioritize it over other concerns or not. More about realism below. Also, gamism and realism/simulation/plausability are not opposite ends of each other, necessarily in contradiction, nor the only ways to play RPGs. I for one, am only limiting the discussion to them because I'm claiming D&D prioritizes the former while you're saying it's incoherent because it doesn't prioritize the latter. Again, realism, simulation, plausability, whatever you want to call it, amounts to the same thing. Maybe "world consistency", or "world plausability" would be the best terms. And yet again, D&D is not primarly concerned with world consistency. Magical items exist to reward the players, or perhaps to give them an opposition when they're being used by someone else. If they create world consistency at the same time - great, but if they don't - big deal, that isn't what D&D was trying to do in first place. "Magical items are created by some entity with magical powers" is enough world consistency for D&D.

The characters and players are competing against the in-game opposition. The GM is the only one who is assumed to not be competing in tandem with the in-game characters he plays. That might be your preferred way of playing (and there's nothing wrong with that), but it is not the assumed way of playing of D&D. Saying "this is how it is" can hardly be called an argument. The only facts you have presented so far is that one sentence in the D&D books. While you keep talking about sword prizes and 1000 hp rats, I have no idea where you're pulling that stuff from. As for my own evidence, like I've said before, the success based reward system of D&D (both experience & items) and the focus in growth in power. I guess I could also mention the gamist combat resolution system. It is competitive between the in-game characters. The GM is simply assumed to not go all-out on the players, that is to only provide encounters the players have a chance of defeating. There are no restraints determined for GM power afterall, simply because that is not what the system is aiming for. Likewise, there is no determined lose/win/prize system for GMs, while there is one for players. Again, it's about the prioritization. It doesn't mean you completely throw out the aspects that you don't prioritize, but rather only in those instances where they are in contradiction with the aspects you are trying to prioritize. Hit Points are a good example of a rule where there exists even no slight realism. The long fall in your previous example is one where some exists, but has not been prioritized. What has that got to do with the whether it's reasonable for a sword to cost less than it does to create it? You're completely ignoring the issue... again. I was commenting on the 2nd sentence, quoted here. I am not arguing RPGs should not be realistic. I am arguing that D&D prioritizes gamism over realism (or in-world logic, or whatever you want to call it). There are other RPG system who certainly are different. I am not claiming all RPG systems are gamist. I can hardly answer your sword example unless you tell me what game it is from. Though I suspect it is only an error. I for one see no reason to have it that way in any system. I thought it'd have been obvious, but... Magic items in D&D exist as a reward to the players. The game does not need complicated reasoning on their existance. Again, because they're there for the gamism, not for the realism. And gamism is what D&D prioritizes.

Feel free to point out any actual rule that does that (there are those too, you know... D&D is somewhat incoherent in when it comes to gaming style). Simply the book saying "this game is not competitive" doesn't mean much when actual evidence, the rules themselves, seem to indicate otherwise. Again, group vs. GM-made opposition, not player vs. player. In by the book D&D, the players either loses or wins as group. The possibility of losing and winning and the rewards are still there, and so is the competitiveness. If there is a chance for losing and winning and rewards it is a competitive process, and these exists in almost all RPG game systems... However, if the game system focuses (prioritizes) on these elements, then the game system itself becomes competitive. Not unless GM tries to all out kill the players, or do whatever constitutes as winning at any specific GM vs. players game... D&D, however, isn't such. (A part of) The GM's job in D&D is to create encounters for characters, and these are the competitive part of it. The GM helps create the Game for the characters, he doesn't try to win it. That doesn't mean the orc, the pit trap or the haggling merchant don't try to "win" against the players in the game world. This is what players vs. GM-made-opposition competitiveness is about. Like I said, whatever you want to call it. Amounts to the same thing: a simulation of the real world, or a simplification there of. Because you are not understanding what I'm talking about. You are still assuming that competitiveness always means person vs. person, and that all RPGs should prioritize simulation/realism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it over others. Again, it's about the prioritization. It doesn't mean you completely throw out the aspects that you don't prioritize, but rather only in those instances where they are in contradiction with the aspects you are trying to prioritize. Hit Points are a good example of a rule where there exists even no slight realism. The long fall in your previous example is one where some exists, but has not been prioritized. Anyway, I have no idea where you're getting this sword prize thing from. It certainly isn't so in 3rd edition. Wouldn't know about previous editions, I don't own the books for those.

It is mentioned in the current edition of D&D as well. It is however, incorrect. D&D is based on success. Those who are successful, get a prize (experience, items, whatever). Gaining a prize gives you both the higher chance to be successful and the possibility to gain better prizes. Those who are not successful don't get a prize, or can even get a penalty (loss of items, death, whatever). If that is not competitiviness, then I don't know what is. Whether the opposition is monsters, traps or diplomacy doesn't matter. If you have a diplomacy roll, where you succeed in a treaty and get lots of prestige on success or degenerate to a war on failure, then that is competitiviness right there. If the game revolves around concepts like success and rewards, then the game prioritizes it over others and is thus a gamist/competitive game. D&D's rules of success-based experience, item hauling and exponential power from levelling are all part of it's gamist style. And as I said, D&D is not a player vs. player or players vs. GM type of competitiveness, but player vs. GM-made-opposition style. My guess as to why the designers decided to include the part about it not being competitive is either to differentiate it from player vs. player competitiveness (which is isn't), or because the designers themselves don't realize what it is. It seems to me you are assuming roleplaying needs realism. While some kind of simulation of a real world (or a simplification of such) can be roleplaying as well, it is certainly not the only type. Again, you're trying to define the whole genre according to your own preference. Also, again, it is about prioritization. This is simply because you are equating "illogical" and "stupid" with "not realistic". Again, D&D is a gamist game. That means realism takes a back seat for competitiveness, but it can still be there. In the case of your swim check or long fall examples, the competitiveness is in the possibility of creating characters that can make such checks, or dealing with a problem requiring that check with a character who can't make it.

It's a question of prioritization, not whether something exists or not. Gamism refers to competitiveness. Player vs. player, players vs. GM, or (most often in PnP RPGs, D&D included) players vs. GM-created-opposition. Gamism is about encountering problems, and figuring out a way to solve them, and most likely getting some sort of reward out of it (or getting a "penalty" if you don't). There's alot more that can go to it, but that's the basic idea. A gamist RPG is an RPG that prioritizes this above other needs. That is exactly what gamist RPGs are about, though they certainly can be simpler or more complex in rules. That certainly doesn't mean that that is everything a gamist RPG can be about; it is simply a question of prioritization. As a gamist RPG, D&D gives the player the option to overcome a problem by making a character that can survive such a fall. Or it might as well not, if it is not relevant to the Game at hand... But apparently the designers felt it is, so realism automatically takes the back seat because it becomes a question of the Game. Again, prioritization. Your problem is that you're trying to prioritize something else in your game than what the rules system prioritizes. You might call it realism, or whatever you want, but the fact itself that you are having these problems with the system proves that you're looking for a different thing in your game than what the system is trying to provide. Neither you or the system are wrong, just different kind of goals. (Though it can certainly be argued whether D&D manages to do well what it tries to do; as long as you don't confuse it with what it isn't trying to do.) There's alot more that can be said on gaming styles, incoherence in gaming styles (in rulesbooks and actual games), and ways to use rules for different kinds of styles... But I'll stop here this time.

This is an incorrect assumption. D&D for one, is a gamist RPG, that tries to create an interesting game for the players, similarly to (for instance) chess. Trying to find an in-world representation for its rules is somewhat futile, as it is not the point of the game. Some rules will have it, some won't, but in general it is beside the "point" of D&D; D&D simply doesn't prioritize it. Some other systems naturally will. However, it is not the main priority of all RPG systems, even if it is important to your way of playing.

Are these patches supposed to give me a ridiculous amount of random encounters? Because they're getting pretty unbearable. Can't move an inch.

If you prefer a more point-based system for spells, check out the Expanded Psionic's Handbook. It presents the system as Psionics, but it's really just a varian rule for magic. As for the races, check the subraces provided in various supplements. Most of them already cater to the ideas you presented for your races.

But those grunts are actually a part of the language! Some that come to mind: un = yes. uun = no. eeh!? = What? (As in, the "I can't believe it!" sense), notice the prolonged 'e'. ha? = What? (As in, the "What the hell are you talking about?" sense) chi/che = damnit. There's lots of others, but I'll spare you the details...

Well, you can basically go either way with it. Making SR simply not affect it only works if you give PR to creatures that have SR and make getting PR items as easy as getting SR items. Basically it seems your GM purposefully gave a _huge_ bonus to that PC. The basic rule, in any case, is that SR==PR... In other words, SR works against psionics. Psychic CrushTelepathy [Mind-Affecting] Level: Psion/wilder 5 Display: Auditory Manifesting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. +5 ft./2 levels) Target: One creature Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will partial; see text Power Resistance: Yes Power Points: 9 Your will abruptly and brutally crushes the mental essence of any one creature, debilitating its acumen. The target must make a Will save with a +4 bonus or collapse unconscious and dying at

In 3(.5) edition, Psionics is game mechanically just an alternative magic-system. And a better one at that, IMHO, though I've yet to use it much. @ Kaftan Barblast: Per the books, Psionics should be either affected by SR, or every creature having SR should also have an equal amount of PR (Power resistance, SR for psionics). My guess is that you were playing it wrongly... The huge majority of psionic abilities are also just basic spells in a different system, so there shouldn't be any more save-or-die stuff than the basic spells have. Though whether you use the 3 or 3.5 version makes a big difference as well.