MrBrown

Transmutation.

Inferior in stats, but their hair options are just too funny to not try one.

Apparently not... IIRC some dev said so at the Bio boards. It's different from PnP. Basically... BAB's at level 30: High PnP: 25/20/15/10 MotB: 30/25/20/15/10/5 Medium: PnP: 20/15/10 MotB: 22/17/12/7/2 Low: PnP: 15/10 MotB: 15/10/5 So, it's a rather big boost to warrior-types, with little change for others. Well, all in all, it does come down to what Gromnir says; the fixed range for randomization means it just doesn't work with the huge level range. EDIT: I don't care one way or another myself, really. I think a CRPG is going the wrong way from the point it starts trying to implement a PnP set literally anyway.

Why are they angry about that? It isn't there, basically. BAB continues to progess like in normal levels, by class, and you continue to gain extra attacks. All PrCs have 5 or 10 levels. In PnP terms, there's no epic progression for them.

It's the numpad * The keymap-tab in the options lists it as player mode or something like that.

My "headbutt" specialist.

I'd really rather have BG:DA type combat, really. Beats NWN and the IE game's combat, IMO.

Icewind Dale 3. Or original RPG IP.

I always played IWD with: Paladin Fighter/Druid Cleric/Ranger Fighter/Mage Fighter/Thief Bard Can't really imagined playing it any other way.

Hmm. Well, I'm not Kaftan's teacher, but I can imagine one such thing that would annoy me if I was the creator of a PnP RPG product. Without going into why it is so, alot of RPG players and groups have a very narrowly defined way to play RPGs. That is to say, they consider those ways to be good roleplaying, and while they might agree that other preferences exist and respect them, they don't consider those equal to their way. In other words, to them, all the differences between RPG products are just differences in ways to achieve the same thing. So when they try a new product, they don't try to find new "things" to achieve with it, but rather attempt to employ it for the same thing they did the previous one. I could see how this would be vexing for the creator, if he meant the product for a different "thing". Absolutism over rules is no solution in any case. <_<

Yes, well, turn-based systems involve this "time stop" thing in any case. I think you'd have to look at other advantages in a TB system than plausibility. Such as tactical choices. Obviously, true realtime just doesn't work for PnP games. I think that if you want to go realistic and still retain playability in PnP RPG combat, you'd go with some kind of concurrent action system.

Well, alot of people prefer to have PCs and NPCs work by the same rules because they prefer world consistency or some such; not necessarily because they dislike the GM changing rules on the fly. This is one of the reasons why I'd separate the "same rules for PCs and NPCs" from the "authority over game rules" -discussion.

Yes. You still keep talking about two different things like they were the same. For instance, many RPG systems give the players a metagame resource (Fate, Luck, Void, it has a lot of names) they can use to re-roll dice, exceed their typical creative authority (GM: "The NPC does this..." Player: *Uses Luck point* "No he doesn't"), etc. Many (not all) games that use this kind of mechanics only give it to the players, not the NPCs. This is an example of PCs and NPCs working by different rules, but not necessarily with any GM authority over the rules. #2 without #1, that is. Though, from your posts, it's obvious that your real problem is with #1. I agree with you, and your teacher. I don't see how it matters whether you're playing the "original" game or not, though.

I think you're confusing a couple of things here. First, you say that the GM changing the rules on the fly is bad. Then, to cure this, you say that "all parties must play by the same rules". Basically: 1. GM authority over rules; does it exist? 2. Do the same rules apply to NPCs and PCs? You can very well have a game where the GM has no singular authority to change rules (personally, I'd consider that necessary for any RPGs), but the PCs and NPCs still operate by different rules.

I've found that quickness of getting into play from the "starting point" is more about how far detached the setting is from the real world, and the number of options in character generation, while quickness in actual play is more about how often you have to refer to the rules book. Quickness of the latter kind is often desirable, IMHO. The former depends on more factors, so I'm not so sure. In any case, out of the ones mentioned, d20 is the only one I've actually GMed, and I'd say it's pretty slow on both accords. I don't think it's desirable to have a specific rule for many specific cases. All you get is a rules bloat, which also makes a game alot slower. IMHO, it's better to have a generic resolution system applicable to any situations which aren't covered by other rules. AFAIK, none of the systems mentioned do that. I think there are two kinds of (working) "realism" approaches to RPGs- Systems that focus on one specific situation, and tries to depict that as well as possible. - Systems that create their own kind of "reality", encompassing the whole word in the system. AFAIK, GURPS is of the 2nd kind. EDIT: In any case, I don't think realism itself is very desirable of a rules system, since it doesn't itself include player choice, only the "result" of the system. As a secondary priority, it can work. Does it matter? For innovativeness these days, you'd have to look at indie-RPGs... Whether that means they're also good is up to opinion. Most commercial RPGs basically recreate the same thing, over and over again. I think it's more about actual play than the systems itself. Most (commercial) systems work, if you know how to use them, and what to use them for. I don't think it's about genres, as much as it's about playing styles.

Hmm. I might get them, depending on mod-compatibility. Does the IWD one come with Trials of the Luremaster (or whatever it was called)?

I can't really vision any kind of RPG product line that wouldn't start to decline after about 5 books. I think RPG producers would be better of trying to make several products that are more specific, but similar in presentation, rather than one Big product that everything else is then based upon. I think WW's WoD has kinda got it, though I can't personally say anything about the quality of their products.

Ginthaeriel, I agree with you. I think CRPGs (and PnP RPG products as well), have generally lost the basic idea of "let's do a game that is fun to play", instead relying on doing things the way others have done before, or relying on outside definitions on what an RPG "should" be. I do think there is potential in the genre as such, I just don't think most games are close to it, at all.

For me, the issue is simply about boredom. In the BG games for instance, if your Cleric died, then you had to tromp through the countryside to the nearest temple and then back to whatever you were doing (not to mention the inventory management to carry all their stuff). This could be 5-15mins of boredom, depending on where you were. And yes, it was annoying. Death didn't bother me in games like some Final Fantasies for instance, where having enough phoenix downs would be enough. There death was just a statistical set back, not a gateway to boredom. This isn't really a problem with PnP, where you can just say "okay, you're at the temple" and "okay, you're back at the 34th level of the dungeon".

"Total party wipeout". It always annoyed me in many squad/group/party -based games how the death of one character/unit, a specific one or any, meant loss in combat.

Yay, another "why can't I get moral decision-making by making a setting" -thread! Rantrantrantrant... Seriously, your situations sounds almost identical to Gromnir's, so read that thread: http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?showtopic=41601 I agree with Eldar on that RPGs require a contract between the participants. I'd go a step further though and say that the contract should be about the "point" of the game (the thing that is fun, assuming the game succeeds). If the participants agree that the game is about "moral decision making" (whatever that is), then the game is about that. The end. And the guy who makes a crazy pirate PC gets a spanking.

Why did you show up, seriously. I recommend just telling him what you think is wrong with this whole thing, and leaving. No reason for you to start acting like idiots as well, like some here seem to suggest. At first, I thought the whole hobo-thing was the result of the random tables as well... Pretty wacky tables at that. I've sometimes found players (occassionally myself included) really eager to use such tables though. They can be pretty fun, if they're not too extreme. Or, as an introduction to a different setting.

"Judgement" is such and abstract term that I can't really know what kind of things you're thinking of there, so I'll leave that general statement unanswered. Well, the only thing I can say is, I've found them ridiculously easy. Just one more thing: The kind of play I'm advocating here with the alignment stuff, is one where the competitiveness (actually, I prefer the word "challenge") is top priority is and "staying in character" secondary. It's the type I think works best in D&D, and that I personally try to get my groups to play if we play D&D. I recommend to keep trying. I don't think D&D is (that) bad or anything, but playing only one system can easily get you stuck in thinking it's the world, and other systems are just providing them same thing in a different package. As for the last comment, I think there's 2 groups of people in this case: people who have a specific type of playing and try to fit that into any system they encounter, and people who try to play by a system first and see where it takes them. It might be pretty obvious from what I've written, but I highly prefer the second approach.

There is nothing wrong with competitiveness as such. It's a goal in playing as much as "staying in character" or "drama" can be. There is no universal "good game", and it doesn't happen without talking about it and recognizing it. As a sidenote, my posts in the Dead Horse: The Beating -thread were mainly about D&D having rules that encourage competitiveness, and thus causing D&D play to often "drift" from other kind of goals (such as "staying in character") to creating competitiveness. This is usually a bad thing, as at least some participants probably don't want it to. There is no need for GM arbitration in such matters, as long as the group agrees on the goal of play, and use a system that supports it and doesn't cause "drifting" from it. Most of the comments like "players try to get away with anything" and "the GM needs to arbitrate the game" come from people who try to GM D&D (or other competitiveness -oriented games) without competitiveness, only to find their play drifting to it, and thus feeling a need to scold the players for their "bad behaviour" Penalties to the player, not the character. Character "power" is important, because that is how the player affects the game world (in D&D, and many other games, but not all). If the player's character has no power, that player is as good as impotent. If something the player does in the game makes him lose his power, then naturally he strives not to lose it. If, in the case of the paladin, the paladin changing alignment means the player loses his power (by not being able to atone, not being able to create a new character, etc etc), then the player will strive not to change alignment. This is where the "GM-arbitrated alignment" makes itself "necessary". If you feel a need to punish the player for not "staying in character", then of course someone needs to arbitrate it. If you take player punishment out of it, then the player can make his paladin fall when he feels like he did something to cause that, and the player can make it by his own accord. And, there is no need for GM-arbitration. There's nothing uncommon about having disagreements about rules. To connect it with my previous paragraph, these are disagreements on the system. Just don't mistake them for disagreements on the goal.

EDIT: I don't mind the topic as such... I just don't want start it from the beginning, again. Ok. Well, let me add this: For the kind of playing I described in the d&d forums post, there should be no penalty to the player for changing alignment, in any instance. That is to say, if the player of the paladin decides that his paladin has now changed alignment and loses all paladin powers, then the GM/system/the whole game as such should provide (not force) him with means to gain back his original power almost immediately. Whether that means atonement, a new character, turning into an "anti-paladin" (using any of the several rules for such out there; I find the Unearthed Arcana variant Paladins to be the best), or something else. Without this, the system only works when "staying in character" is top priority. Which is rather hard to maintain in D&D, due to the competitiveness of the rules (to use theory jargon: the rules of D&D make it so easy to drift from "staying in character" to competitiveness, willingly or not). Get away from.... What? If there are no penalties for changing alignment and being of any specific alignment, the players don't need to "get away" with anything.