Leaving behind the d20 System

[Jediphile]

Do those OD&D changes make sense in the setting?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The OD&D classes were good, and since Mystara was the original setting, they have always been there. They make just as much sense in other setting, though, and newer Mystara material no longer uses the original ideas for the paladin and similar classes.

 

If there's some grand idea that a different race cannot be a Paladin or some other class because of a setting, then why didn't 3e stipulate some of these rules?

 

And what, in the FR/Greyhawk setting, would absolutely prohibit the creation of a Dwarven Paladin?  Dwarves don't have gods that would grant a warrior divine powers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, how about that there have never been any before?

 

What I really don't like in 3e is how they wanted to allow everything, so suddenly there are gnomish paladin/thief/necromancers and halfling ranger/sorcerors jumping right out of nowhere - there is no basis for them in the Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms setting, as the rules never allowed them before, but they do now, and so we must have them.

 

Same thing about dwarven wizards, which is a really silly idea - it's just plain stupid that 3e insists on allowing that, and yet continues to enforce the same rigid class-system that keeps you within your fixed archetype. Sure, you can now mix the archetypes in completely ridiculous ways, but you still must accept them. Uhmmm...

[Jediphile]

Only when you know exactly (including skills) how you want your character to be. Otherwise, classes are just as good, if not superior and in most cases easier for beginning players to get into.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I'll be bold enough to completely disagree there. Yes, an open skill system can seem daunting to a new player, but then that's why there are templates - just make up a character as a base, and then the player change from that. It works remarkably well in most skill-based games, since it has all the archetype of the classes and none of the restrictions.

[EnderAndrew]

What I really don't like in 3e is how they wanted to allow everything, so suddenly there are gnomish paladin/thief/necromancers and halfling ranger/sorcerors jumping right out of nowhere - there is no basis for them in the Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms setting, as the rules never allowed them before, but they do now, and so we must have them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps they shouldn't be restricted in the core rules, but rather in specific settings. Most settings seem to put their own spin on races and classes anyway.

[alanschu]

I was under the impress that it was just the setting that restricts it.

 

 

Well, how about that there have never been any before?

 

Based upon what? A limited amount of literature?

 

If you just look at the core rules, of COURSE there haven't been any before, because they were restricted and not allowed. If that's the best reason you can come up with for a Dwarven Paladin not fitting the setting......

 

Of course you can be silly and take things way to the extreme and go "but but but, there's no bugs bunny, because it doesn't fit the setting" or whatever.

 

AD&D held up some sort of bizarro archetype where humans reigned supreme and could do anything, but everyone else, despite having the same base attributes and whatnot, just can't do it.

 

I can have a Gnome with 18 intelligence, but he can ONLY be an illusionist. Because a Gnome Conjurer is just OMGoWTFz00rs! or something silly.

 

If it wasn't talking about fictional races, I'd almost say that AD&D is racist! :D

[Jediphile]

Based upon what?  A limited amount of literature?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually I recall an FR story that had the dwarven inability to learn wizardry as a central focus... But I guess the campaign must bow to the core rules even if its internal reality becomes undone Oh well, I neither like nor play FR anyway...

 

Besides, I know as a GM that's it's much easier for me to tell the players that, "yes, you can play dwarven paladins. I know the book says you can't, but I'll allow" than it is to say, "No, there are no dwarven paladins - I don't care what the book says!" The latter can and will be met cries of foul and frustration, since the player cannot pursue something that is in the rules, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. I can't even blame them, since things that should so obviously be optional as is the case here shouldn't be put in the core books in the first place.

 

If you just look at the core rules, of COURSE there haven't been any before, because they were restricted and not allowed.  If that's the best reason you can come up with for a Dwarven Paladin not fitting the setting......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didn't know I needed an excuse - I don't allow them. Period! Besides, for dwarves to be paladins, they would at least have to have deities that fit the archetype of the heroic warrior seeking to banish evil from the world, and they don't... Most dwarven deities are craftsmen or some variety thereof. Besides, dwarves tend to isolate themselves as race, which doesn't exactly fit will with the idea of seeking out and smiting evil in the world.

 

Of course you can be silly and take things way to the extreme and go "but but but, there's no bugs bunny, because it doesn't fit the setting" or whatever.

 

AD&D held up some sort of bizarro archetype where humans reigned supreme and could do anything, but everyone else, despite having the same base attributes and whatnot, just can't do it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nonsense. Paladins are rare in the extreme in AD&D - try looking at the ability requirements, and you'll see being human was the least requirement to qualify - so I fail to see how that makes humans "reign supreme". Indeed, level limits were introduced because humans would otherwise never be able to stand against the might of dwarves and, particularly, elves - they live for long times, and they could take multiclasses, which humans could not.

 

And like it or not, D&D fantasy is based on archetypes - that's why there are forced classes.

 

I can have a Gnome with 18 intelligence, but he can ONLY be an illusionist.  Because a Gnome Conjurer is just OMGoWTFz00rs! or something silly.

 

If it wasn't talking about fictional races, I'd almost say that AD&D is racist! :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh please, illusionists always sucked, and they still do - all the wizard specialists do. They're just watered-down imitations of the wizard to make the game seem a little more diverse.

 

In 3e they've added that fireball-dispenser on top called the sorceror - no role-playing potential whatsoever, but he can toss fireballs left and right... It took less than a day upon the release of 3e for the sorceror to earn the 'fireball-dispenser' title on the various D&D forums - completely munchkin and proof positive that WotC did the rules by the lowest common denominator among the gamers. Yeah, there's a fun basis for a class - it actually promotes *less* diversity in the use of magic. Fun... At least until WotC release a book, where the Sorceror restriction on few spells is waived, or is that already out?

 

AD&D racist? Like it's racist that AD&D humans can't be fighter/mages or other multi-classes? If AD&D is racist, it's at least racist across the board...

[EnderAndrew]

Points on both sides keep reminding me why I don't play D&D.

[Jediphile]

Points on both sides keep reminding me why I don't play D&D.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good call - more power to you

 

I'll be following soon.

[Lancer]

I have introduced beginning players to non-class based systems, and many have told me later down the road that after trying D&D, they feel D&D (3E even) is far more complex and cumbersome.  When teaching a new player, you might as well teach them how to roleplay properly.  Roleplaying is about having a unique character.

 

D&D is about forcing a template upon players.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ahhh.. nice play on words except I am not talking about 3e/D&D here. I hate 3e precisely for the reason that for a "class-based" system it has the complexity of GURPS. And there is no good reason for that. I agree that 3e is horrible for a beginning player. I can't stand 3e, and you know this.

 

There is no way you can convince me that just choosing among a few character classes and "GO" (like in AD&D, OD&D) is harder than creating a character in skill-based systems. In skill-based systems you must have a very good idea about your character concept to begin with. This is compounded by the realization that most skill-based systems have quite extensive skill lists which the player needs to have had substantial familiarity with before even beginning character creation.

You can't just throw a beginning player into a game like GURPS (or even WoD) before spending at least an hour or several hours just reading over the skill lists.

 

The AD&D templates are especially appropriate for entry level play because a lot of the work has been done for you already. Just because a character hasn't been created from scratch down to skills doesn't mean it can't be roleplayed. On the contrary, templates provide useful broad guidelines on how a character *can* be roleplayed. At the same time none of these character classes are so restrictive that it disallows original roleplay.

Even a reasonably "restrictive" class like the Paladin still leaves a lot to the realm of possibility.

[Jediphile]

There is no way you can convince me that just choosing among a few character classes and "GO" (like in AD&D, OD&D) is harder than creating a character in skill-based systems. In skill-based systems you must have a very good idea about your character concept to begin with. This is compounded by the realization that most skill-based systems have quite extensive skill lists which the player needs to have had substantial familiarity with before even beginning character creation.

You can't just throw a beginning player into a game like GURPS (or even WoD) before spending at least an hour or several hours just reading over the skill lists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd agree with you for OD&D, but not AD&D, since there are still lots of options to choose between in AD&D. Which spell should the wizard take (I *hate* all the D&D spells - has anybody ever read them all?), which spheres should the priest take, and which god allows them? Where should the thief focus his percentages, and which weapons should the warrior take specialization/mastery with? And once you're through that, you get to choose proficiencies... That can easily take an hour or more.

 

The options can seem overwhelming in skill-based games, but then that's why you have templates that you can modify from. Try taking a look, if you don't believe me.

 

The AD&D templates are especially appropriate for entry level play because a lot of the work has been done for you already. Just because a character hasn't been created from scratch down to skills doesn't mean it can't be roleplayed. On the contrary, templates provide useful broad guidelines on how a character *can* be roleplayed. At the same time none of these character classes are so restrictive that it disallows original roleplay.

Even a reasonably "restrictive" class like the Paladin still leaves a lot to the realm of possibility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But there is a big difference between a template and a fixed class. A template is just an example, and you can change things around pretty much as you like. You cannot do that with a class, since all the major choices are made for you when you commit to one - the warrior will not be learning wizard spells, the wizard cannot heal wounds, etc.

[Lancer]

Well, I'll be bold enough to completely disagree there. Yes, an open skill system can seem daunting to a new player, but then that's why there are templates - just make up a character as a base, and then the player change from that. It works remarkably well in most skill-based games, since it has all the archetype of the classes and none of the restrictions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Only *some* skill-based games come with templates though. If memory seves me, I don't recall there being any in the new WoD book or the new d6 rulebooks. The GURPS basic set does have a limited number, although, they are only usable for fantasy campaigns. There are no templates for modern or sci-fi characters. There are also no templates for a character who wish to be a mage, priest or demihuman character..etc. I don't own GURPS fantasy so I am not sure if this problem is corrected then.

 

It is true that Shadowrun third edition does have a good variety of different templates although we are all familiar with how horribly complex it gets after the character gets created.

 

Even with the templates, however, it doesn't take away the fact that the player needs to have a substantial familiarity with the skill lists --the bare minimum--- understanding how his own skills work. And if there is a skill he wants replaced it is back to reading the entire skill list again.

[EnderAndrew]

If you don't have a good concept for what to create, you're going to have a problem in any game. When I teach people how to create characers, I walk through the process of concepts before rules.

 

Maybe that's your problem.

[Lancer]

I'd agree with you for OD&D, but not AD&D, since there are still lots of options to choose between in AD&D. Which spell should the wizard take (I *hate* all the D&D spells - has anybody ever read them all?), which spheres should the priest take, and which god allows them? Where should the thief focus his percentages, and which weapons should the warrior take specialization/mastery with? And once you're through that, you get to choose proficiencies... That can easily take an hour or more.

 

If you are starting off with high level characters from the get-go it will take a considerable amount of time doing all these things although assuredly less than building a 200+ point character in GURPS.

I mostly start with level one characters when I play so this is not really applicable in my campaigns. It makes no sense to throw beginning players into a higher level of play.. At least, I would only do that for more experienced players anyways.

 

Choosing priest spheres and the like I resolved in my campaign a long time ago when I converted the WotI boxed set Immortal priests to AD&D rules. I have templates for all my different priests.

 

The options can seem overwhelming in skill-based games, but then that's why you have templates that you can modify from. Try taking a look, if you don't believe me.

 

You talk here as if the only systems I have tried are class-based systems like AD&D/OD&D. LOL. I played and/or read through GURPS, CoC, Shadowrun, Cyberspace, SLA Industries, d6, WoD, FUDGE, FUZION, Savage Worlds, even the Hercules/Xena RPG :"> (currently going through Oroborus)and several other skill-based systems yet for the possible exception of SLA Industries none approached the quickness of AD&D/OD&D. CoC kinda does although it does that by cheating.. It just lacks rules altogether.

 

 

But there is a big difference between a template and a fixed class. A template is just an example, and you can change things around pretty much as you like. You cannot do that with a class, since all the major choices are made for you when you commit to one - the warrior will not be learning wizard spells, the wizard cannot heal wounds, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can if you have Player's Option. Although I have never felt compelled with customizing AD&D classes. Especially since the standard classes work so well with Mystara... Except for the Paladin class which I borrowed from OD&D.

[EnderAndrew]

If the core rules need fixing with a boat-load of optional rules either in new books, or house-rules, then it is not a good system.

 

I'm not going to argue that your home-made system doesn't work for want you want. I will argue that both AD&D and 3E fall flat of being good systems.

[Lancer]

If you don't have a good concept for what to create, you're going to have a problem in any game.  When I teach people how to create characers, I walk through the process of concepts before rules.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which is what I have to do in skill-based games..Which I have no problem with. But admittedly it is considerably more effort (particularly on the player) than just picking a class in AD&D and start rolling dice within 5 min.

[Lancer]

If the core rules need fixing with a boat-load of optional rules either in new books, or house-rules, then it is not a good system.

 

Then there is no such thing as a good system because all systems fall victim to the house rules of picky GMs/DMs/ST. Don't believe me? Do a websearch.

 

If I had the patience to rewrite Shadowrun, GURPS, or even WoD, I would.

 

 

I'm not going to argue that your home-made system doesn't work for want you want.  I will argue that both AD&D and 3E fall flat of being good systems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am assuming you have Dmed (not only played) AD&D before. How long were you an AD&D (not 3e) DM for..How often did you do it? Honestly?

[EnderAndrew]

Rolling dice do not make a character.

 

Perhaps you have a different definition of role-playing. Perhaps you ROLL-PLAY.

[Jediphile]

I am assuming you have Dmed (not only played) AD&D before. How long were you an AD&D (not 3e) DM for..How often did you do it? Honestly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I've been an AD&D GM (or DM, if you prefer) for 15+ years, and I agree with him. Your mileage may vary...

[EnderAndrew]

I ran AD&D for about 3 years in junior high. I ran 3E briefly to give it a try.

[Jediphile]

Rolling dice do not make a character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. I hate that in AD&D. I want to *make* characters. But in AD&D there is a tendency for players to roll and then see what they can get away with...

 

Perhaps you have a different definition of role-playing.  Perhaps you ROLL-PLAY.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now, play fair - it's somehow just too easy to accuse D&D of roll-playing with its heavy focus on monster-slashing (hack'n slash) and dungeon-crawl, but it's still a role-playing game, and even the original. And some of the adventures are just good RPG. Take Mystara's "B10: Night's Dark Terror" or Greyhawk's "Fate of Istus", for example

[Lancer]

Rolling dice do not make a character.

 

Perhaps you have a different definition of role-playing.  Perhaps you ROLL-PLAY.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No I don't. I just maintain that making an AD&D character is easier than making a character in most skill-based systems for the reasons I have discussed above.

 

If having that opinion makes me a roll-player then I am lost as to why that is so.

[EnderAndrew]

I wish there were an emoticon for biting my tongue.

[Lancer]

I ran AD&D for about 3 years in junior high.  I ran 3E briefly to give it a try.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So you didn't have enough time DMing it to try to customize the system to your tastes for whatever reason.

 

I started with OD&D back in '92-93..Then I moved on to AD&D. Some 12-13 years of experience. When you have over a decade to fool around with it, you start tinkering with it until it becomes something that you are proud of and does what you want it to do. Apparently, this doesn't work for everybody though (Jediphile).

But for every person like Jediphile I assure you that there is a person that feels like I do.

 

I have a theory-- It seems that the more time you have to tinker with a system "fixing" its problems the more likely you will come to like it. People who have short stays with AD&D are much more likely to find other systems much better since for all practical purposes they just didn't play with it enough to address its problems.

 

When you stay long enough with a system AND successfully tailor it to your tastes over the years you won't find other systems better.. believe me...

[Lancer]

I can't be a ROLL-PLAYER.. I don't play 3e.

 

And I make my own adventures 95% of the time. I hardly ever use TSR's hack and slash modules. You can make AD&D a ROLE-PLAYING game.

 

I play in Mystara and Planescape.. Settings that are hardly about roll-playing (in particular Planescape).

[EnderAndrew]

3E has less dice rolling and streamlined rules.

 

If you content 3 years isn't enough to learn a rules system, then that system is too complex and your expectations are whacked. I keep quoting systems you can pick up and play right away. I can teach a player to play D6 in minutes.

[Lancer]

Well, I've been an AD&D GM (or DM, if you prefer) for 15+ years, and I agree with him. Your mileage may vary...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

tisk.. tisk..