Does anyone else share my dislike of d20?

[Lancer]

*Sigh*...I maintain that class-based and skill-based systems *both* rule. I know this is so cliche but it's true... It's not what you got but how you use it. I realize what I just said can be taken the wrong way.

[EnderAndrew]

Sure, an inferior system can be ran well. That doesn't make it a superior system.

[Lancer]

But if they mean so little, then why bother having them at all? Why not just give people points to build with and then let them go and buy what they want among the skills and traits and what have we? Not to offend, but any idea of classes will always face that criticism.

 

This was my favorite aspect of GURPS

[Lancer]

Sure, an inferior system can be ran well.  That doesn't make it a superior system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The point is that it doesn't need to be. In fact, a good GM can make such a disadvantage nearly unnoticeable.

[Lancer]

If I were to design my own "superior" (using Ender's choice of words) PnP system, it would have the character creation system of GURPS with the combat mechanics of SLA Industries. Unfortunately, that would be dreaming.

[Cantousent]

I don't see why one system is "superior" to another in the first place. DnD is "superior" because I've invested money in the rulebooks and I can get other folks to play it. Gamma World was "superior" because it briefly allowed my fanatical friend to play a role playing game with me in Junior High School because it wasn't a fantasy RPG.

 

Sure, we can assess the rulesets and compare them. That's perfectly legit. Still, when we compare the rules for the sole purpose of ridiculing one of the sets then it seems we're engaging in mental masturbation.

 

Something that seems far more effective to me is to cite systems that get it right rather than concentrate on systems that get it wrong. ...Or maybe citing where systems can make simple improvements without radically remaking the system.

[Lancer]

I don't see why one system is "superior" to another in the first place.  DnD is "superior" because I've invested money in the rulebooks and I can get other folks to play it.  Gamma World was "superior" because it briefly allowed my fanatical friend to play a role playing game with me in Junior High School because it wasn't a fantasy RPG.

 

This is very true. There is no inherently "superior" system. Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder only (no pun intended). There is no superior system as much as there is no superior form of food, or dress, or campaign setting..

 

Sure, we can assess the rulesets and compare them.  That's perfectly legit.  Still, when we compare the rules for the sole purpose of ridiculing one of the sets then it seems we're engaging in mental masturbation.

 

HAHA!!It definitely does feel like it as well as tautological.

 

 

Something that seems far more effective to me is to cite systems that get it right rather than concentrate on systems that get it wrong.  ...Or maybe citing where systems can make simple improvements without radically remaking the system.

 

Following this, I say either find a system that most fits what you are looking for or just design your own. But all this, "the system is superior because it doesn't have what *I* like" stuff really is subjective and varies from person to person.

One can discuss what they like or don't like about a particular system but to say that it is "superior"or "inferior" implies an absolute that just doesn't exist.

 

Take me for example.. I certainly don't think that AD&D is "inferior".. But then again, I am a weirdo. :D

[EnderAndrew]

Sure you can have fun with bad rulesets, but certain rules are better or worse than others.

 

I don't accept mediocrity as a standard with a glib disposition.

[Lancer]

Sure you can have fun with bad rulesets, but certain rules are better or worse than others.

 

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

With that definition, every ruleset I have ever used then is a "bad" ruleset. I have yet to come across a system without "significant" problems that did not require major re-writing of rules...

And this includes the modern systems as well. Maybe I am just picky, I dunno.

 

I don't accept mediocrity as a standard with a glib disposition

 

You don't have to accept mediocrity. That is what house rules are for.

[EnderAndrew]

You don't have to accept mediocrity. That is what house rules are for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have routinely stated that you are comfortable creating house rules for 2E and accepting the flaws in that system, but you wouldn't be comfortable with 1 or 2 house rules in 3E. You stated that you shouldn't have to create a house rule to fix a problem.

 

I think the reality of the situation is that you have already invested time fixing one broken system to the point where you are comfortable with it, and you don't want to attempt to spend the same effort elsewhere.

 

That doesn't make 2E a better system.

 

I have found 1 system I can run without house rules and be completely comfortable with out of the box, and that's the D6 system.

[Lancer]

You have routinely stated that you are comfortable creating house rules for 2E and accepting the flaws in that system, but you wouldn't be comfortable with 1 or 2 house rules in 3E.  You stated that you shouldn't have to create a house rule to fix a problem.

 

I would need to write more than 1 or 2 for 3E.. believe me. And I never said that you shouldn't have to create a house rule to fix a problem.. IIRC, that was Eldar who said something similar... About not having to feel "compelled" about making house rules.

At any rate--- I did say, however, that I am not a rules purist and if there is a rule you don't like then it is not out of your power to address it via house rules. I advocate the use of house rules totally. It would be a perfect world if all systems were made so that you wouldn't need to make house rules but alas that is truly fantasy.

 

I think the reality of the situation is that you have already invested time fixing one broken system to the point where you are comfortable with it, and you don't want to attempt to spend the same effort elsewhere.

 

That would be correct. I sure as heck wouldn't want to start all over again.

 

That doesn't make 2E a better system.

 

No.. But I like my 2ndEd + house rule system+ PO combo (however unstreamlined it is) better than 3E.

 

I have found 1 system I can run without house rules and be completely comfortable with out of the box, and that's the D6 system.

 

Yes.. And it is not even a "modern" system.

 

I used to play Star Wars D6 waaaay back in high school. That was lots of fun though I don't remember too much about the mechanics anymore.

 

Come on Enderwiggin.. You know deep down inside you still *love* 2ndEd..Give in to your hatred.. Come to the dark side it is the only way!

[EnderAndrew]

D&D was my initial foray into pen-and-paper gaming. I had some fun times, and characters I'll never forget. I've played 2E once since then, and only for one session.

 

A very experienced DM told us to all create 5th level characters (or maybe it was 6th level). He told us we could be anything we wanted.

 

So I created a Drow Bard/Psionicist with a 20 Dex, who could fight with two weapons and no penalties. He was decent with a sword, had some thieving abilities, and more.

 

We were also told we could have one magic item. Most people took a magic sword, or something equally as boring. I merely asked for a Ring of Fire Control, and was promptly granted the request. In fact, the DM felt I asked for the weakest item.

 

We started the game in the Underdark dealing with Drow politics. In our first really nasty battle to finish off the session I unveiled my major twink of the character. I activated Control Pain, and Control Flame as Psionic Powers. Control Pain doubles damage, and Control Flame doubles damage from flame. Then I read a Fireball scroll my Wizard friend in the party was making for me. The Ring of Fire Control doubled the damage yet again.

 

So I did something like 5d6 or 6d6 base damage, times 8.

 

My character had a good AC, decent hit points, was pretty good with a sword, good hide in shadows, could read scrolls, had psionic powers, and a major trump card.

 

The DM called me the twinkiest player he has ever seen, and decided never to run D&D for me ever again.

[Lancer]

The DM called me the twinkiest player he has ever seen, and decided never to run D&D for me ever again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So he just kicked you out of the group just because you were too smart for you own good? LOL

[EnderAndrew]

Certain systems have more opportunity for twink than others. I think in general, the more rules, the worse off you are. It's just like tax laws. The more laws they create, the more loopholes they create.

 

I think most people would agree that simpler rules systems allow people to learn the game easier. In addition simpler rules allow for quicker resolution of conflict. Simpler rules allow for more balance. Simpler rules allow the DM/GM/ST to alter the rules to their liking easier without rewriting everything. Simpler rules allow for more flexibility in not nailing everything down with a specific rule.

 

With the D6 or WoD system for instance, players can take any skill they can think up. In D20, skills have to be class skills, or cross-class skills. You can't just invent new skills. You automatically get whatever you get at arbitrary levels. A level 20 Barbarian is not balanced against a level 20 Bard, nor is a level 10 Monk/level 10 Barbarian is not balanced against a level 20 Bard.

 

Any system that limits you from playing whatever concept you want is inferior to a system that will allow you to play any concept you want.

 

Furthermore, D&D rewards you to play within templates. In 2E, a 10th level Human Fighter is really the same as the next 10th level Human Fighter. In 3E you get to pick skills and feats, but by picking certain skills and feats, you can plug yourself into a prestige class. By following the path laid out exactly for you, you are rewarded with a powerful prestige class, thusly the rules system goes out of it's way to discourage unique character builds.

 

And you don't see a problem with that type of game?

 

Simple house rules don't fix the core problems D&D is predicated on.

[Weiser_Cain]

A DM should always be the smartest guy in the room.

[Lancer]

A DM should always be the smartest guy in the room.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:D

[EnderAndrew]

A DM should always be the smartest guy in the room.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I feel that it helps if the DM knows the rules as well, if not better than everyone in the room. With a simple rules system, that isn't a problem.

[Lancer]

A DM should always be the smartest guy in the room.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I feel that it helps if the DM knows the rules as well, if not better than everyone in the room. With a simple rules system, that isn't a problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And AD&D is not simple?

AD&D has always been simple to me. Simpler than 3E anyhow.

[EnderAndrew]

:darque:

 

I mean,

[Lancer]

Any system that limits you from playing whatever concept you want is inferior to a system that will allow you to play any concept you want.

 

Furthermore, D&D rewards you to play within templates.  In 2E, a 10th level Human Fighter is really the same as the next 10th level Human Fighter.  In 3E you get to pick skills and feats, but by picking certain skills and feats, you can plug yourself into a prestige class.  By following the path laid out exactly for you, you are rewarded with a powerful prestige class, thusly the rules system goes out of it's way to discourage unique character builds.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But, you see, I personally don't have any problem with class-based systems. You say this because *you* don't like them. Again, this is more a matter of taste than anything else and is thus not even debatable. This is definitely not about which system is most superior but which system best fits whatever pre-determined concept of "what a good system should be like" that you have in your head.

 

And you don't see a problem with that type of game?

 

Not at all. Worst is a system that is so simple that you have to make up a whole bunch of rules just so that it can become playable.. (i.e. CoC)

 

Simple house rules don't fix the core problems D&D is predicated on.

 

Is that so? Have you ever tried playing 2ndEd with the Player's Option books? You can have sword-wielding wizards if you wish and paladins that can lockpick and so on and so forth.

[EnderAndrew]

Yes, but then you're layering rules upon rules to fix problems within the game, but still you're stuck within classes.

 

You seem to have missed my point that the game punishes unique character builds. What kind of "role-playing" is that when you are rewarded for following the best twinks instead of playing your character?

 

Inherently, that is ****ed up.

[Cantousent]

You know, Ender, I like you despite the ridiculous "class based systems are for those inferior role-players" attitude. Class based systems are not inferior. A lot of folks like them because they provide a template. Maybe they have less experience in RPGs. Maybe they are impatient when it comes to character creation. Maybe they just like the same old DnD characters of old. At any rate, you act as if a skill based system is better, by definition, than a class based system. There is no such established fact.

 

Skill based systems have much to commend them. Nevertheless, they aren't the pinnacle of RPG goodness. It's simply true that far too much depends on the group for the ruleset to be the determining factor. It is a factor. It is not the determining factor.

[Lancer]

You seem to have missed my point that the game punishes unique character builds.  What kind of "role-playing" is that when you are rewarded for following the best twinks instead of playing your character?

 

Inherently, that is ****ed up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Strangely that doesn't happen in my game. It is the DM's responsiblity to reward players for good roleplaying. I had this taken care of long ago.

[Lancer]

At any rate, you act as if a skill based system is better, by definition, than a class based system.  There is no such established fact.

 

Skill based systems have much to commend them.  Nevertheless, they aren't the pinnacle of RPG goodness.  It's simply true that far too much depends on the group for the ruleset to be the determining factor.  It is a factor.  It is not the determining factor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For the record, I like the "inferior" class-based AD&D overall better than the "superior" skill-based GURPS.

[Jediphile]

Sure, an inferior system can be ran well.  That doesn't make it a superior system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The point is that it doesn't need to be. In fact, a good GM can make such a disadvantage nearly unnoticeable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A good GM can make the flaws of event he worst system not matter at all. But if the GM is that good, what could get out of a system that was much better? And as EnderWiggin said, an flawed system is still a flawed system. A good GM can get around that, but why should he have to? Shouldn't the system be tested and flawless to begin with? Yes, I know that will never happen, but I think we can get a good deal closer to perfection than we do in 3e...