Does anyone else share my dislike of d20?

[Lancer]

My PCs just tend to survive improbable situations so I play them very loosely and throw them in improbable situations whenever I can.  My fictional personas have great luck to balance my personal bad luck I suppose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

[EnderAndrew]

No, I'm fairly rational in real life.

[Jediphile]

"From the shrubbery leaps two Storm Giants!  Roll dice!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Wonderful

 

"Shrubbery"... Why do I suddenly think, "We are the Knights Who Say: NI!!" :D

 

The Fighters and Clerics were better suited for melee, and healing.  My Thief was not as suited to combat, and I also failed to receive the bonus 10% experience for combat.  Because the DM didn't go out of his way to include my PC more directly, I was really bored.  I asked to create a Fighter and throw away my PC, but the DM refused until my PC died.  After that I tried to kill off my PC by acting in suicidal fashion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, this is a recurring problem, and it's actually another argument against fixed classes - in a skill based system, the group members could have spread out to cover the thieves' skill, but in D&D you must have a thief. It was a little better in 2e Player Option and 3e, which pretty much repeats the same rules, since fighters and others could at least take some thieves' skill, but still not all of them. But since not all are covered, a thief is needed, and the role is forced on somebody who doesn't really want it, as was the case for you. An excellent example of shoddy game design, actually...

 

The PC never died, and thus began my streak of improbable surviving PCs, and much of my playing style stemmed from that.

 

We played Dragonlance at the time, and we were in the middle of a Dragon War.  Blue Dragons attacked our castle, and I leaped from the top tower on the back of a Dragon, attempting to backstab it mid-air.  I succeeded, and after finishing off the Dragon, I fell 200 feet to the ground.

 

20D6 damage, and a successful saving throw later, I still survived.  It was lots and lots of that.

 

I made 23rd Level Rouge, 10th Level Psionicist before I finally retired the character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Sure this part does belong in the "warstories" topic I began? :D

[EnderAndrew]

Oddly enough I prefered Dark Sun, where many PCs died.

[Jediphile]

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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Personally I don't have the problem. Nobody in my group wants to play a rogue at the moment, so why force them? There is an uncursed-mintaur-turned-human fighter, a male human ranger (who could give Legolas a run for his money with his bow...), a female human wizardess, and a male dwarven fighter/cleric. All heavily geared toward combat, the dwarf and non-minotaur focused on melee, the ranger on ranged, and the wizard on... well, artillery :D

 

I don't prohibit thieves, and we have had them at times, but the people who have played them have long since left, so I'm not going to force anything. Besides, I can add thieves as NPCs when needed, and do so on occasion. Besides, the ranger can do several thief-like things like hiding in shadows and moving silently, and since he's level 15, he's very good at it (especially with Dexterity 19 on top of it...). That said, I do take cheap shots at the lack of a thief at times - I'm sure a thief would have been really handy when the entire group was captured by an evil wizard and thrown in the dungeons of the ranger's arch enemy (yes, Lancer, they were captured by Bargle, who gave them to the Black Eagle...)

[Lancer]

Yes, this is a recurring problem, and it's actually another argument against fixed classes - in a skill based system, the group members could have spread out to cover the thieves' skill, but in D&D you must have a thief. It was a little better in 2e Player Option and 3e, which pretty much repeats the same rules, since fighters and others could at least take some thieves' skill, but still not all of them.

 

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.

 

But since not all are covered, a thief is needed, and the role is forced onsomebody who doesn't really want it, as was the case for you. An excellent example of shoddy game design, actually...

 

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

 

 

Sure this part does belong in the "warstories" topic I began?  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was wondering about this myself..

[Lancer]

That said, I do take cheap shots at the lack of a thief at times - I'm sure a thief would have been really handy when the entire group was captured by an evil wizard and thrown in the dungeons of the ranger's arch enemy (yes, Lancer, they were captured by Bargle, who gave them to the Black Eagle...) 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Cantousent]

I prefer Paranoia, where PC are built to die!

 

Actually, Paranoia is another game I'd love to play, not all of the time, but because it's the funniest game I've ever played.

[Loof]

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.

Since good is relative and all the players usualy have roughly the same amount of xp in a group, nobody can be good at everything in a skill based system either. If you increase every skill equaly you will be a jack of all trades, but master of none just like it should be

So the players haveing different roles to fill in the group is the norm even in skillbased systems so your statement holds true as much for classbased as for classless systems.

[Lancer]

Since good is relative and all the players usualy have roughly the same amount of xp in a group, nobody can be good at everything in a skill based system either. If you increase every skill equaly you will be a jack of all trades, but master of none just like it should be 

So the players haveing different roles to fill in the group is the norm even in skillbased systems so your statement holds true as much for classbased as for classless systems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

[Loof]

Its a matter of preference yes, of course anyone that prefers classbased games is obviously a raveing madman and so automaticaly loses his vote due to mental illness.

[Jediphile]

That said, I do take cheap shots at the lack of a thief at times - I'm sure a thief would have been really handy when the entire group was captured by an evil wizard and thrown in the dungeons of the ranger's arch enemy (yes, Lancer, they were captured by Bargle, who gave them to the Black Eagle...) 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Cheap shots are fun to take. I tend to torture my PCs as much as I can

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, I didn't just stop there - the ranger had a ring of regeneration, and so the Black Eagle tortured him to death repeatedly, then let him recover some (you cannot die from wounds if wearing a ring of regeneration according to the rules). Nasty. Wish I could say I thought of it, but it was competely stolen from Greyhawk (where Ivid the Undying does that sort of thing in the Great Kingdom, only he provides the ring himself...).

 

As if that wasn't enough, the Black Eagle and Bargle then came up with a diabolical plan. Bargle placed an advanced Geas spell on the ranger that commanded him to 'escape' and then go to Specularum. Since the ranger is a knight of Karameikos, he may wear arms in the King's court, so he would go in there armed and then kill Stefan. He was then likely to be killed by killed the king's guards, but just in case he didn't, they also placed another spell on him.. I took the player aside and explained all this to him (except the second spell, of course), so that he could role-play the challenge.

 

So there was a good reason why the group could escape, since Bargle and von Hendriks let him go. They forgot to include the order not to rescue his friends, however, so when he was set free, he helped them escape too (after we had played an entire gaming session where the other three character had tried in vain to escape).

 

Basically the whole thing was a reverse form of the DDA3 Eye of Traldar adventure. The adventure is low-level, and the PCs have to sneak into Fort Doom and recover the legendary Eye of Traldar (an exceptionally powerful scrying device), which has fallen into the hands of a new wizard called Sverdlov. My PCs were all levels 12-15, but they began captured inside the dungeons of Fort Doom, and then had no spells (all spellbooks and holy symbols stolen), and they were all severely injured. So they find the eye and escape through the dungeons (which is the way inside in the adventure).

 

But in doing so, they have set the ranger free and must discover that something is wrong before he goes to Specularum and kills Stefan. They didn't do too well, despite various clues thrown all over the place. They didn't even get the clue that the ranger, who is notorious in the group for hating cities, wanted to go to the capital more than he wanted to go and return the Eye itself to the Seer who lives among the elves of the Dymrak Forest - that should have been a pretty big clue...

 

In the end, they figured it out, because the NPC of the adventure noted that the Eye was an item of religious importance to the traladaran faith, particularly to the Immortal Zirchev, which is the ranger's own patron. Must say I was a little disappointed that they didn't pick up on it before that... Anyway, this led to a humorous confrontation, where the wizard tried to convince the ranger (played by wife and husband respectively) that there was something wrong with him, and that he should let her cast a spell to incapacitate him. They argued back and forth for an hour, while I was biting my lip so hard from suppressing my laughter that I really should be compensated :D

 

Eventually she did put him out with a Hold Person spell, and then they took him to Terari at the emerging School of Magecraft (AC 1010, remember). He removed the advanced Geas, but triggered the second spell, which was a Programmed Amnesia (from Spells & Magic), which made him forget everything that had happened since he was captured

 

Is that a cheap shot? You tell me...

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The ranger is a mixed thyatian/traladaran male, but follows the traladaran faiths and customs. He was born in the Black Eagle barony under von Hendrik's rule, and his parents were killed under the evil reign of the Black Eagle, so there is little love lost between them. The player chose the Black Eagle as his 'Powerful Enemy' (optional disadvantage from Skills & Powers), so it was really a background choice. Over the years they've clashed several times, though it's only after the recent captured that the Black Eagle has become hated by the entire group, which was naturally the reason for my nefarious plots - it's time for the Black Eagle to fall, so all the PCs should just get to hate him enough to really enjoy it when it comes

[Jediphile]

I prefer Paranoia, where PC are built to die!

 

Actually, Paranoia is another game I'd love to play, not all of the time, but because it's the funniest game I've ever played.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, Paranoia rules. I've heard more hilarious war stories from this game that most others, and it's not even the most played.

 

Sadly Paranoia falls into a category of games, including such classics as Ars Magica or Cthulhu Now, that I have never had the chance to play myself

[Lancer]

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

[Lancer]

Its a matter of preference yes, of course anyone that prefers classbased games is obviously a raveing madman and so automaticaly loses his vote due to mental illness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

[Loof]

no no semi madness is a virtue just like lazyness, semi-madness in eccentric and lazyness saves on work :D

[Jediphile]

Since good is relative and all the players usualy have roughly the same amount of xp in a group, nobody can be good at everything in a skill based system either. If you increase every skill equaly you will be a jack of all trades, but master of none just like it should be 

So the players haveing different roles to fill in the group is the norm even in skillbased systems so your statement holds true as much for classbased as for classless systems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Very true. Indeed, players who, in a skill-based game, all go for the same skills are in for a rude awakening. Or even worse, a player could decide to be reasonable in a lot of skills, but not brilliant in any - though such a character is diverse to some degree, he will not be very useful in the group. And the group *will* need diverse groups of skills at high levels.

 

Take 5th edition Call of Cthulhu. That's a skill-based system. There are professions, but they really only serve to focus the character on taking up to eight skills as primary (though I don't know why they bother, since the rules say you can make up your own professions anyway, so it really is just a redundant chore...).

 

Anyway, playing Cthulhu, you quickly learn that most (if not all) players should focus on one of two directions - good warriors/marksmen who known nothing about what the 'monsters' represent and scholars/professors who do know because they study Cthulhu Mythos. Why this is essential will become only too obvious when you meet a monster... :D

[Loof]

I don't think I have ever played CoC where any of teh players could be described as warrior/markesmen, we usualy all are scholars, craftsmen or something like that. Usualy works well anyway as it reminds us that combat is dangerous and shoudl be avoided at all costs. Although the running from cultists can get a bit anoying...

But otherwise I agree with you agreeing with me :D

[Jediphile]

I don't think I have ever played CoC where any of teh players could be described as warrior/markesmen, we usualy all are scholars, craftsmen or something like that. Usualy works well anyway as it reminds us that combat is dangerous and shoudl be avoided at all costs. Although the running from cultists can get a bit anoying...

But otherwise I agree with you agreeing with me :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My point was that when a Mythos monster appears, you really need somebody to fight it, but it can't be the scholars, because knowing what it ismeans having at least a decent Cthulhu Mythos, and since Sanity is never above 99-Mythos, that means the higher the Mythos, the lower the sanity. And in Cthulhu ignorance truly is bliss - you're actually penalized for really knowing that the monster is, and rewarded for not knowing a damn thing about it. The scholars will have lower sanity, so they will usually fail their sanity checks and stand around shocked and screaming in the corner. The "warriors" don't know what the problem is, though, and instead just fight the monsters. This works best when the scholars know that fighting is futile, but can't say it and can't run away, because they've gone into apathy, while the others can run away, but don't have the knowledge that it is the only way to survive... Yes, Cthulhu is an evil game

[Epicenter]

Just my .02 about d20.

 

d20 was designed with D&D in mind. D&D has increasingly become an entry-level RPG. Concepts such as hit points, levels, and classes are easy to understand for beginning and not-serious players. While the game was cleaned up some and given more 'neat plug-ins' for your character such as feats and character abilities, it's essentially still a very simple game and easily understood game. Your class determines your role, and you can pretty much determine how workable a party formed of your friends will be at a glance by looking at their classes.

 

d20 D&D has gone a huge way in giving a shot to the arm for an increasingly ecceltic and anemic hobby - Role Playing. It's brought new, younger players in and by appealing to the 'megaoverpower' of modern children's entertainment by the revamped classes, it hopes to bring (sucker?) in a new generation of RPGers. I think in this respect, it's an admirable success. I personally don't think D&D should ever veer away from classes, levels, experience points, phat lewtz, and so on.

 

I think if one gets tired of that system (and who doesn't?) there are plenty of other systems to play with their own trade-offs.

 

---

 

I don't think I have ever played CoC where any of teh players could be described as warrior/markesmen, we usualy all are scholars, craftsmen or something like that. Usualy works well anyway as it reminds us that combat is dangerous and shoudl be avoided at all costs. Although the running from cultists can get a bit anoying...

But otherwise I agree with you agreeing with me :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Try it. It works really well. :D Well, except when it doesn't. When it doesn't the phyiscally oriented brawns survive while the brains do not because the brawns can run faster (this being the single most important trait in CoC for overall survival).

 

People often seem to think that the brawns have a short survival time, but it's actually untrue. Brawns actually have a pretty good life-expetancy if played intelligently. After all, it's not your job to seize control of the Shoggoth after you riddle the Shoggoth-Twisha with your tommy gun or bathe him in fire from your flamethrower*. That's the job of the brain and his or her magic spells.

 

You don't need to be strictly divided between brain and brawn (unless you enjoy RPing dumb guys with guns), but you should have people who are decent with weapons who cope with the cultists / ghouls / deep ones rank and file, while you have the scholars with their low sanity and CM artifacts. For instance, in my games jobs such as driving/piloting, interpersonal skills, and the infamous Credit Rating are all divided amongst the Brawns to give them something to do when not in combat.

 

 

* A flamethrower means having to say you're sorry less often. They did exist in the 1920s (if you're playing CoC by Gaslight, you could probably still fashion one). Try to get or make one ASAP when it is believable in-character for a brawn to start seeking one out. They're well worth the trouble of keeping working and smuggling around and the brains will sometimes even be able to concoct exotic fuels for it which only increases the fun for the whole family. And when it's time to take a hit for the team? You can at least go out in a fireball that'd make Brockheimer proud.

[Loof]

I get the impression that our CoC games are VERY different from yours.

When we play it's more of a mystery and horror because you know something is terribly wrong but you can't see it type of theme. So combat in all forms is next to nonexistant, an when it does occur its only against cultists or other human oponents and "never" agains any mythos creature (never as in yes it has happened once or twise but extreemly rarely).

 

Also our characters generaly have very little mythos knowlage so the schollars dont nessesarily have less sanity, as tehir areas of expertice are more normal akademia such as ancient languages, history, religion and possibly normal occult knowlage (you know the things that dont work but that can give hints of the true horrors...).

I also cant rememeber ever knowing any spells at all although its posible some character has known one at some time...

[Epicenter]

I get the impression that our CoC games are VERY different from yours.

When we play it's more of a mystery and horror because you know something is terribly wrong but you can't see it type of theme. So combat in all forms is next to nonexistant, an when it does occur its only against cultists or other human oponents and "never" agains any mythos creature (never as in yes it has happened once or twise but extreemly rarely).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

These kinds of things usually happen in campaigns, like "Masks of Nylarlathotep" or "Shadows of Yog'Sothoth" and other such where after repeated casualities and narrow escapes, eventually the players get something of a clue of what they're up against. That's when the clamoring usually starts for heavy weaponry (which is usually denied).

[Loof]

Yeah i have heard simmilar acounts from other players that play CoC as a campain game. I have never gotten around to playing" Mask of Nyarlathotep", although i have heard its one of the all time best campains together with "Enemy Within" (warhammer frpg).

I tend to enjoy CoC more as a mini campain or oneshot game, in said onshots it usualy ends with the players dieing or going horribly insane (one notable and fun exception was the scenario where we where "rewarded" with imortality so that we could se the consequenses of our actions after having accidently managed to help all the old ones wake up).

[EnderAndrew]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a point-based system, no one is going to be really good in everything as well because people who specialize in areas will be better in those areas than people who spread their points all over the place.

 

D&D also offers very little to the player who wants to be the jack-of-all trades, and some players want that option.

 

The multi-class/dual-class rules in 2E were flat out stupid and broken. Even most 2E fans admit that.

 

I have never once ran into a problem with point-based systems where players didn't specialize in different areas. Again, if you are trusting your players to pick classes that will complement each other for the sake of creating a party, why do you assume players can't do the same with point-based systems?

[Jediphile]

d20 D&D has gone a huge way in giving a shot to the arm for an increasingly ecceltic and anemic hobby - Role Playing.  It's brought new, younger players in and by appealing to the 'megaoverpower' of modern children's entertainment by the revamped classes, it hopes to bring (sucker?) in a new generation of RPGers.  I think in this respect, it's an admirable success.  I personally don't think D&D should ever veer away from classes, levels, experience points, phat lewtz, and so on. 

 

I think if one gets tired of that system (and who doesn't?) there are plenty of other systems to play with their own trade-offs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's all good and fine. I prefer 2e, but then I've already admitted that it's probably due to reasons of nostalgia more than because it's a better game. So fair enough - I'll just have to accept that I've outgrown D&D, sad though that may be to face...

 

Only d20 isn't content to stay D&D. If they stuck to d20 Pokemon and similar, then this wouldn't be a problem, but games like Star Wars and Call of Cthluhu have suffered from d20 IMHO, and WotC are not planning to stop there - they want d20 to spread across the entire industry. If that happens, then those alternate systems will disappear. Having entry-level RPGs is okay, since I won't have to play them, but when they begin to muscle in on the territory where I like to play, then I will object and say that these *ARE* exceedingly simplistic entry-level RPGs and not the next generation of RPG. Heck, D&D/d20 isn't even the current generation of RPG - it's the old generation of RPG, hailing all the way back to the early 70s, when D&D became the first RPG ever.

 

RPGs have grown since then and advanced beyond its infancy. This has meant dropping outdated concepts like fixed classes, hit points, experience levels, and their ilk, since they do not represent a compelling experience that serves to suspend the disbelief of the players. Both Cthulhu 5th Ed. and Star Wars d6, though both still simple, were more mature systems than their current d20 incarnations. They were perhaps less polished, but still more mature. D20 isn't a step forward, it's a step back to the early 80s and 70s, and since it permeates the RPG industry or at least intends to, it only serves to regress the development of better RPGs and stop innovation in new games.

 

Try it.  It works really well.  :D  Well, except when it doesn't.  When it doesn't  the phyiscally oriented brawns survive while the brains do not because the brawns can run faster (this being the single most important trait in CoC for overall survival). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Quite...

 

People often seem to think that the brawns have a short survival time, but it's actually untrue.  Brawns actually have a pretty good life-expetancy if played intelligently.  After all, it's not your job to seize control of the Shoggoth after you riddle the Shoggoth-Twisha with your tommy gun or bathe him in fire from your flamethrower*.  That's the job of the brain and his or her magic spells.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Also true, though I should admit that my lasting CoC (5th ed) character was indeed a "brain". He was a fat parapsychologist with abysmal strength (couldn't fire any weapon without penalties...) and a growing Cthulhu Mythos. Along the way he did pick up a few nasty habits, though, particularly once per month at full moon, and for some reason he always ended up eating whatever character one of my old friends was always playing at the time, though I will defend myself by saying that the last time it happened, he was at least dead first...

 

My character lived for about the decade we played before the campaign died, and he didn't die even then. So how did he survive so long, when he was obviously in so poor physical condition? Ah, brawns can run faster, perhaps, but it's just as much a question of knowing *WHEN* to run - ability to run fast doesn't help if I know how to run first - brain over brawn indeed

 

 

* A flamethrower means having to say you're sorry less often.  They did exist in the 1920s (if you're playing CoC by Gaslight, you could probably still fashion one).  Try to get or make one ASAP when it is believable in-character for a brawn to start seeking one out.  They're well worth the trouble of keeping working and smuggling around and the brains will sometimes even be able to concoct exotic fuels for it which only increases the fun for the whole family. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I can tell we've had similar experience with Call of Cthulhu

 

Gosh, how I miss those days (even though our Keeper was and remains an utter jerk...)