MrBrown

(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.

I'd rather they not base their game on an existing PnP rules system. I don't mind converted PnP settings, though.

Bioware let Obsidian have KotOR 2 simply because BIO is more interested in making it's own IPs succesful, now that they have been succesful with D&D (several times) and with Star Wars. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with your wording, but this is hardly a case of the BIO CEOs coming before Fergie, bowing and presenting KotOR2 on a silver plate.

I personally would also prefer something completely original. For Obsidian as a company, the decision about their next game will depend alot on how succesful they expect KotOR2 to be, I guess. If KotOR2 is a success, and seen as one as the result of Obsidian's efforts (not simply because it's a sequal to KotOR1), Obsidian might be able to take the risk and go with something original for their next game. Also depends on how much pull Fergie has among publishers.

Another way of doing this (and IMO, better) would be that the secondary methods help out the combat indirectly. For instance, lessen the amount of enemies, weaken them somehow, give you allies, get you powerful items earlier, take away traps/stationary defenses, etc., anything that fits in the game. I think this kinda designing method would be a better solution than simply making all the classes equal combatwise, as that would lessen character development options for the player. Otherwise, I agree with you 100%. D20 is combat=primary method, everything else=secondary method.

I haven't played KotOR1, but the computer skill and spikes things sounds like it should be made to work like lockpicking in Geneforge. Basically, the difficulty of the task and your skill level should determine the amounts of spikes you need to use to perform the task. If you have high skill, you can do stuff without using any spikes, but if you have zero skill, it'll take alot of spikes (and the resources spent to get those spikes) to do it. This way, both the spikes and the skill are meaningful, and it won't become a case of having the skill or not (which kinda sucks because it means that whatever that task does would only be available to character with the skill; would mean that only pointless non-necessary stuff can be achieved with the skill).

@Macolio: I agree you on the resting thing. It serves no purpose but to waste the player's time in most games these days. As for the "console style character development", I'm not sure what you mean. If you're saying that your characters should be getting more than just a simple bonus to their attack roll and HP, then I agree. I think the best idea is to make character development interesting and give the player alot of choices. Not sure if some kind of a clear PC-RPGs vs. Console-RPGs division really works here, though. Lastly, don't pay attention to Sargy here.

I think it was simply assumed when Bioware mentioned (on a press release on their site) that they get more offers from publishers than they can handle, and that they gave one of these to Obsidian. This was shortly after KotOR came out, I think.

Stalking through the candy store, clutching a burning branch, cometh MrBrown! And he gives a bloodthirsty scream: "I'm going to f*** you until you're pissing s***, and roll you in creamy neugut!" <_< :ph34r:

I have a feeling a company the size of Obsidian will rely on the QA sections of their publishers or other companies they're working for (Bioware, for now). What little actual QA they do by themselves, will probably be done by the developers.

After FFIV, FF games seem to have started being more about the skill/magic system rather than the levelling up. Both in what matters more and what the player can affect more. Jobs in FFV, the Espers (or whatever they were) in FFVI, Materia in FFVII, etc. This attitude seems to have spread into other JRPGs as well. Personally, I'd prefer all the stuff would work relatively in the same manner / using similar math, but that's just me. Not like western RPGs do that always either.

The problem with the instant-kill/save vs. death stuff is, IMO, not in the fact that it kills stuff quickly, but rather that when implemented in most RPGs it tends to make it just a game of chance rather than requiring any skill from the player. If lightsabers would almost always kill on one hit in an SW game, then the majority of combat would just be move next to enemy -> attack -> hope you hit and he doesn't -> reload if he does. Not much player input, not much fun. I don't think making combat extremely dangerous like this is bad itself, the developers just need to make certain it doesn't end up a game of %s. One way to do this, for instance, would be to simply have a large party where the death or incapacitation of a single character doesn't matter much. More action oriented games are, of course, a totally different matter. Hitting and dodging the enemy itself takes alot of player involvement.

Will do. BTW, I don't think turning 3E into classless would be that much of a hassle. Most of the variant systems, however, seem to also want to turn it into leveless, point-based, and what-not. That's too far IMO, and you'd be better of making your own system at that point. Here's a somewhat simple idea I had for classless DnD: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?...light=classless It does require 'some' work in balancing the numbers, and changing class abilities into feats, though. :ph34r:

I think we've discussed this alot of time in various forums related to BIS/IP... I think the best way of fixing this problem (classless systems being harder to approach than class-based ones) is having templates, guidelines (or whatever you want to call them) that can choose the skills and abilities for the player. These templates should be created according to familiar stereotypes. Using DnD types as an example, the Fighter template would choose only combat stuff, Ranger mostly combat plus a little nature/survival, Rogue a little combat and alot of thievery type skills, etc. In an ideal case, these could be turned off or on at anytime. I think Arcanum had something like these, but I don't remember anymore (and I didn't use them in the 1st place ). BTW, talking mostly about CRPGs here.