This thread is a clearing house for my off topic rants. I shall try my best to quote the posts that I am responding to in full, but I can only garauntee that my own words are off topic rants. Quotes from other posts are likely actually on topic on another thread somewhere.
EDIT: Okay, the thread has now been fully constructed. Feel free to respond as you will.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonOkay, I'm finally responding to the title question of this thread. Here's what LC dislikes about magic:
The system is sprawling and complicated, and it gets more worse with every new book release. Seriously, I can understand the importance of nuance, but there comes a point where enough is enough-- we really don't need any more spells. Discounting issues like power creep and uneven scaling of power between casters and noncasters with each new suppliment (both entirely new cans of worms to be opened), a lot of things are redundant. I'd prefer to have a simplified system that allows for individual variation on a smaller number of core ideas: don't give me two dozen level 1 damage spells, give me one or two, and the ability to cast each of them in a few different ways.
The Arcane/Divine distinction, the Psionics/Magic distinction, and other arbitrary divides. There is really no reason to introduce this sort of mechanical complexity to further clutter-up an already complex mechanism. We can get the same results (if we must) by giving spellcasting classes different spell lists (which we're doing already, anyway!) Dividing magic into arcane and divine categories is arbitrary, pointless, and redundant. Dividing the whole notion of "supernatural effects" into magic and psionic categories is even worse, because it requires me to familiarize myself with an entirely new set of game mechanics. What we really need is a simple and concise system that's used by anybody who does anything supernatural; then leave details about how they did it up to players, DMs, and writers.
When you strip away the actual game mechanics themselves, what's the difference between the concept of a bard, an enchanter wizard, a cleric of Trickery (or whatever), a sorceror with a lot of mind magic, and a psion who specializes in mental effects? Tell me honestly: is that difference enough to justify an entirely new book of game rules? Is it even enough to justify distinct classes for these spellcasters? Maybe yes, maybe no.
Magic is the skeleton key-- it fits every lock-- especially at high levels. It takes a while for this to become apparent, but as characters gain levels, magic solves more and more of their problems. Magic becomes the tool of choice for any issue, whether it's investigation (scrying!), stealth and infiltration (teleport in, invisibly!), countering traps and assorted hazards (I could name A MILLION THINGS), asskicking (massive area damage and save-or-die effects), and a multitude of other things. The logic behind this versatility and efficacy is that casters can do pretty much anything they like once or twice a day while non-casters can fulfill their more specialized roles until the cows come home. But the harsh reality is that once or twice a day per issue is often enough.
The entire "maximum effect, minimum duration" setup. As I mentioned above, what I mean here is the notion that casters can do anything very well, for a very short time (in contrast to non-casters' comparitively steady mediocrity.) I'd like to see casters evened out more, so that they don't dominate everything very briefly, then become pretty useless for the rest of the day.
The entire "glass cannon" concept. In combat, most casters, at least theoretically, can cause a huge amount of damage, but they're relatively pretty fragile: hence the term "glass cannon." I don't like that setup. I want to see the role of "dedicated face-wrecker" default to non-magical combatants-- and not just when the mages have run out of spells, either! Conversely, I want to see spellcasters that aren't so fragile in battle. I don't buy the idea that magical strength precludes physical toughness.
I don't like systems that aren't explained. I don't have a problem with Vancian magic, strictly speaking. I've seen literary examples where Vancian magic is used to great effect-- check out Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber, if you haven't already. (The last five books feature a protagonist who is a Vancian-style spellcaster, and most interestingly, give the reader some insight as to why that magic works the way it does, and why it's prepared ahead of time.) D&D, on the other hand, presents an unusual system without any explanation for why the system is there, or for what it looks like to the actual characters who'd use it. I think that's a big part of why Vancian magic turns so many people off: not just because it's Vancian magic, but because there's no effort taken to make that system make sense.
Magic's invasive. Societally, it's everywhere. Largely a game-world-flavor-specific complaint, sure, but the mechanics make that flavor situation very logical and natural. Magic's everywhere. It's everywhere because it's useful. It's everywhere because it's necessary to counteract the abilities of spellcasting characters. It supplants mundane equivalents everywhere. If a character gets injured and looks for medical care, does he see a doctor? No, because a first level cleric of any faith is a better healer than a non-spellcasting doctor will ever be, ever.
It's too fast, and it's too flashy. Magic as-written is a system based around the idea of instant gratification. That's well and good, I suppose, for a certain kind of game. I'd much prefer to take out all the swift, flashy "I'm killing you with a snap of my fingers!" business and reduce magic to a matter of rituals and runes-- powerful and slow, in the manner of glacial movement, or continental drift. There's a time and a place for everything, and the place for magic is not in the middle of a melee, and the time for magic is not right this instant.
Magic makes a lot of interesting hardships trivial. In conventional fiction, even a small wound can be a huge deal-- it can fester, it can bring a fever, and it can basically kill you dead, even if it's in a non-vital place (say, your arm.) A first-level divine spellcaster can laugh that off, and help others do the same. Sickness is a powerful idea in fiction, but in DnD, it's a non-issue, because every sickness can be dealt with by relative novices in the spellcasting community. (As DMs, we could always use special diseases that resist magical healing, but we aren't fooling anybody: that's a cop-out answer, and it's lame.) Even death is not a problem, because with the exception of some fairly rare circumstances, getting someone brought back to life is pretty simple to accomplish.
Magic short-circuits a lot of plot ideas. Life-restoring spells undermine the effectiveness of "the King has been killed!" story ideas. "Speak With Dead" solves a murder-mystery while completely bypassing all the things that make murder-mysteries fun. Getting revenge on the orcs that killed your family (or whatever) becomes a less potent motivator when you consider that lots of adventurers could (eventually) afford to pay to get his parents resurrected if they wanted to sell off that +4 battleaxe of pwnage. I know that a lot of writers have done really good jobs about working around these sort of issues (Jurgen Hubert, with Urbis, springs quickly to my mind with some really clever examples,) but my point is that they shouldn't have to do that. The fact that anyone should have to work so hard to assemble a logical game or a logical setting in spite of the magic system... that indicates to me that the magic system has some serious problems.
And that's my two (dozen) cents.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonThe system is sprawling and complicated, and it gets more worse with every new book release.
The Arcane/Divine distinction, the Psionics/Magic distinction, and other arbitrary divides.[/blockquote]
I'm not sure I see the problem with the arcane/divine distinction. Arcane means that you can't do it perfectly in armor and you need a few extra material components; divine means that you can and you don't. That's really about it, mechanically speaking.
And I don't see how the magic/psionics divide is a problem, either, especially since the psionics rules say you can just ignore the divide and declare that magic and psionics are the same things, anyway. The only difference here is that one caster uses spell slots and one uses spell points.
Of course, you could argue that having one caster using spell slots while another uses spell points is needlessly complicated; since they both use magic, they should both use the same mechanics. But by that argument, all melee combatants should use the same mechanics instead of relying on different combat styles and different feat trees to execute different maneuvers. A two-handed-weapon wielding barbarian with Power Attack and a two-weapon fighting monk are just as different as the different types of casters, but they're still both melee combatants. Why not just merge them together, as well?
QuoteMagic is the skeleton key-- it fits every lock-- especially at high levels.
I agree with that statement. If D&D wants to admit that it's a high-magic system, it should give every class supernatural abilities to do something better than everyone else. If it wants to continue claiming that it's medium magic, it should find a narrower niche for magic to fill.
QuoteThe entire "glass cannon" concept. In combat, most casters, at least theoretically, can cause a huge amount of damage, but they're relatively pretty fragile: hence the term "glass cannon."
That's not true. Wizards and sorcerers are glass cannons, but clerics and druids aren't at all. In fact, the need to make available both a physically puny caster archetype and a physically robust caster archetype is a perfect argument for an arcane/divine (or similar) distinction. If you don't like glass cannons, use only divine casters; since the distinction is already there, it's easy enough to drop them. If, on the other hand, your players occasionally like to play a bookish and fragile caster, seperate classes for arcane and divine casters work quite well.
QuoteI don't like systems that aren't explained.
Justifying the game mechanics is the DMs job. That's part of the fun of DMing.
QuoteMagic's invasive. Societally, it's everywhere.
I agree. D&D needs to either admit that it's really a high-magic system or make its magic more scalable.
QuoteIt's too fast, and it's too flashy.
That's largely a matter of taste and style of play. Of course, a system that caters to more than one style of play by giving options in determining how flashy magic is will inevitably create different types of magic and/or casters, thus using artificial distinctions such as the arcane/divine divide.
And, incidentally, casting a spell is a lengthy process involving runes and rituals that require an extensive amount of time. I seem to recall that the PHB states flat-out that the process of using a spell begins during spell preparation; the "casting time" is just the time it takes you to full activate the ritual that you performed earlier in the day.
QuoteMagic makes a lot of interesting hardships trivial.
I agree 100%. This is one of the biggest problems with D&D magic. In fact, the mechanics for suffering and healing damage in general also make lots of interesting hardships trivial.
QuoteMagic short-circuits a lot of plot ideas.
Again, I agree. There are some plots that are nearly impossible to run in high-level D&D.
Incidentally, it's also nearly impossible to use the plot device where a messenger stumbles up to the PCs and keels over dead before fully explaining his presence. The line between alive and dead is so clearly defined in D&D that you can almost never have a mortal wound and be walking around, talking about it.
(Also, its nearly impossible in d20 Modern to hold someone at gunpoint, since they don't become helpless and can thus fight back by just sucking up one readied attack that deals normal damage.)
Quote from: CYMRO of the TRUE Cabbage CabalQuoteArcane means that you can't do it perfectly in armor and you need a few extra material components; divine means that you can and you don't. That's really about it, mechanically speaking.
That is not what they mean, those are mechanical istinctions built into the rules.
It is all about the source of the power, just as psionics represents a third source of power.
Quote[blockquote]Magic is the skeleton key-- it fits every lock-- especially at high levels.
I agree with that statement.[/blockquote]
Concur. Maybe a liitle judicious paring of spells, as well as a stricter separation of divine/arcane/psionic speels/powers.
Quote[blockquote]I don't like systems that aren't explained.
Justifying the game mechanics is the DMs job.[/blockquote]
I would think that justifying game mechanics is the game creator's job.
QuoteMagic makes a lot of interesting hardships trivial.
Again, a paring of spells and powers can rectify this.
Quote from: CYMRO of the TRUE Cabbage CabalQuoteArcane means that you can't do it perfectly in armor and you need a few extra material components; divine means that you can and you don't. That's really about it, mechanically speaking.
That is not what they mean, those are mechanical istinctions built into the rules.
QuoteJustifying the game mechanics is the DMs job.
I would think that justifying game mechanics is the game creator's job.[/blockquote]
The game creator's job is
balancing game mechanics. If the game creator also justifies them by creating fluff, then he is creating a specific world. The more fluff he creates, the narrower the set of possible settings to which his game rules can apply.
Quote[blockquote]Magic makes a lot of interesting hardships trivial.
Again, a paring of spells and powers can rectify this.[/blockquote]
True, though paring spells without also eliminating the ability to reproduce literary tropes can be tricky. For example, you couldn't stay faithful to the fantasy genre and eliminate all pesky scrying spells at the same time. Scrying spells are part of the fantasy genre.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuote from: Epic MeepoIncidentally, it's also nearly impossible to use the plot device where a messenger stumbles up to the PCs and keels over dead before fully explaining his presence. The line between alive and dead is so clearly defined in D&D that you can almost never have a mortal wound and be walking around, talking about it.
(Also, its nearly impossible in d20 Modern to hold someone at gunpoint, since they don't become helpless and can thus fight back by just sucking up one readied attack that deals normal damage.)
On an unrelated side note, we've lost sight of the idea that the *world* is magic and that magic has its own agenda and ideas about how the world should work.
mine[/i] to make.
Me, the writer. The writer who doesn't want mechanics and rules systems stepping on his creative toes.
[/quote]
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuoteLC: The Arcane/Divine distinction, the Psionics/Magic distinction, and other arbitrary divides.
Epic Meepo: Arcane means that you can't do it perfectly in armor and you need a few extra material components; divine means that you can and you don't. That's really about it, mechanically speaking.
CYMRO: That is not what they mean, those are mechanical istinctions built into the rules.
Epic Meepo: The comment I was responding to refered to the rules for the arcane/divine divide as being too mechanically complicated. Hence, I only addressed rules-related issues in my response. Obviously, there are also flavor-related differences between arcane and divine.
Begging your pardon, but my comment that you responded to had nothing to do with the mechanical complexity of rules for the arcane/divine divide. What I was saying is that there's no reason that divide even needs to exist, not as an artifact of rules, or as a matter of flavor.
Sure, it works well enough as an optional set of rules, in the same way that psionics are a pretty good optional set of rules:
some settings would benefit from that distinction. Not every campaign
wants an arcane/divine distinction. I certainly don't. So why build it into the rules, if it's unnecessary?[/blockquote]
I really am confused. What works well as an optional rule? If we're not talking about game mechanics, what exactly is the distinction between arcane and divine that a setting might not want? Wizards are just bookish clerics and clerics are just tough wizards.
I suppose you can argue that the word "cleric" has a religious connotation, but that's no less troublesome than the fact that the word "bard" has a blatantly Celtic connotation. Some campaigns will have to use different names for certain classes in order to avoid out-of-place terminology. But the rules already concede the point that different characters might have different names for identical things, so having to rename "cleric" to get a new connotation shouldn't be an issue.
QuoteThis goes back again to my desire for a system that is as simple as possible, and therefore, as flexible and customizable as possible. Every unnecessary addition to a system of mechanics makes statements about a campaign world that uses those mechanics; maybe those statements are things I don't want to say.
What is the unnecessary addition to the system? You need clerics because you should be able to play casters who aren't glass canons, but you also need wizards because you should be able to play casters who aren't trained for combat. There's no wasted space there.
Any generic spellcasting class that is supposed to represent both clerics and wizards as a unified whole is either going to restrict player options or be so insanely customizable that no two members of the class will be even remotely similar, at which point it may as well be two different classes.
Now, if you want to say that the wizard/sorcerer divide is arbitrary and redundant because now you have two glass canons with few differences between them: that argument I understand completely...
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuote from: Epic MeepoSecond, I have to admit that now I'm completely confused about what we're referring to as the arcane/divine divide. Is your objection to the fact that there is more than one spellcasting class?
any[/i] sufficiently advanced cleric of Erythnul (or any setting's equivalent god of slaughter and dismemberment) can heal wounds and raise the dead, acts arguably counter to his deity's doctrines, while no wizard, no matter how advanced in his arcane art and how knowledgeable in first aid, can ever magically mend so much as a papercut? Why is it that no cleric of a god of slaughter and destruction can ever match the arcane destructive power of even the most timid wizard, who has Disintegration, Horrid Wilting, and Meteor Swarm at his fingertips?
QuoteI really am confused. What works well as an optional rule? If we're not talking about game mechanics, what exactly is the distinction between arcane and divine that a setting might not want? Wizards are just bookish clerics and clerics are just tough wizards.
I suppose you can argue that the word "cleric" has a religious connotation, but that's no less troublesome than the fact that the word "bard" has a blatantly Celtic connotation.
in-game[/i] connotations of a term like "cleric", not the linguistic ones. But that, for the most part, I've already expressed.
QuoteQuoteThis goes back again to my desire for a system that is as simple as possible, and therefore, as flexible and customizable as possible. Every unnecessary addition to a system of mechanics makes statements about a campaign world that uses those mechanics; maybe those statements are things I don't want to say.
We should be able to have, for example, tougher casters that aren't tied to gods, and more fragile-yet-potent casters that aren't tied to book learning. Let the players choose the "flavor direction" of their characters based on their preference, not because they were forced into Flavor Column A or Flavor Column B based on the class they selected.QuoteAny generic spellcasting class that is supposed to represent both clerics and wizards as a unified whole is either going to restrict player options or be so insanely customizable that no two members of the class will be even remotely similar, at which point it may as well be two different classes.
distinct[/i] types of adventurer vocations, a situation which strikes me as almost comically contrived.
For my money, I prefer a system of classes where each class provide the sort of customization flexibility that players can use to create diverse individuals within each class, and that's the sort of system I tried to create when I did my massive magic system revision. (My "channeler" spellcasting PrC, for example. You could make about a hundred different types of channelers, and they'd be totally distinct from one another. I consider that one of the class's greatest strengths.)
If I absolutely have to use a class that's more of a "character template" than a flexible framework, I want that template to be something I've tailor-made to match my setting's workings, especially when we're talking about magic users. A sword swings pretty much the same way no matter where you are, but magic can work so very drastically differently from one setting to the next that it almost requires setting-specific alterations to the magic system, unless you're willing to overlook a lot of glitches that I, personally, am not willing to overlook.QuoteNow, if you want to say that the wizard/sorcerer divide is arbitrary and redundant because now you have two glass canons with few differences between them: that argument I understand completely...
Quote from: Luminous CrayonTake a spell that's on multiple spell lists. As an example, Hold Person. Clerics can cast it, and so can wizards, and it has exactly the same effect. But a cleric can write a scroll of Hold Person and give it to a wizard, and the wizard can not use it at all, because it's "formatted" incorrectly; he can only get Hold Person from scrolls written by arcane casters, not divine ones. Apparently clerics and wizards are a lot like macs and PCs-- each is picky about the way in which information is presented.
Additionally, divine casters, but not arcane ones, can do just fine in armor. Why is that? Whatever explanation that you use to support that quirk, it says things about the laws of nature in your campaign that you might not otherwise say.[/blockquote]
Divine casters use a different 'language' of gestures when casting spells, and since their tradition is combat casting, not book learning, their gestures work better in armor. The only law of nature involved is that spells require gestures, some of which can be interfered with; everything else is just a function of how a caster is trained.
QuoteSimilarly, divine casters wave their holy symbols around when they use magic, and arcane ones much about with bagsful of bizarre (and probably difficult to transport) props. Why is that necessary, and why is the necessity different for arcane casters than for divine ones?
In the
Dragonlance setting, arcane spell components are holy symbols and arcane spells are prayers. Just because different casters use different objects to emphasize their 'casting languages' doesn't mean that those casters are necessarily utilizing different laws of nature.
Also, fantasy literature frequently mentions spells that require wierd ingredients, and its always easier to include a system for wierd ingredients that can be removed later than starting with no suc system and tacking it on later. Removing such a system requires only one change (all casters get Eschew Material as a bonus feat) whereas adding such a system after the fact requires editing a large number of spells that already exist. Sometimes, it's just more efficient to hard-code in something that can be bypassed than hard-coding nothing in and relying upon much more complicated add-ons.
QuoteAgain, no matter how you answer that question, you further cement the distinction between arcane and divine: the realization that there are two channels of power by which magic is accessed, that each channel has its own specific rules and laws that govern its use, and every use of magic falls neatly into one or the other.
As I mention above, I don't really see two sets of rules and laws at all, just two different 'casting styles,' in the same way that the fighter and the barbarian represent two different combat styles.
QuoteIt's easy to notice that certain types of magic are predominantly divine, divine-only, predominantly arcane, or arcane-only. For example, healing effects are predominantly divine (the exception being the bard, poor redheaded stepchild of the arcane family.)
That's not a problem with arcane and divine magic. Any system that uses multiple spell lists will inevitably wind up assigning some spells to one spell list that do not appear on others. Unless you use only one spell list for all casters, there will have to be a line in the sand drawn somewhere.
QuoteUsing the PHB alone, if I want to play a spellcaster that's tougher than a wizard... if I don't want to be beholden to gods (or worse, something as nebulous and morally absolutist as the Concept of Goodness), and I don't want to brandish a holy emblem, and I don't want to be expected to heal people, and I don't want to give up powers like flying and invisibility and teleportation.... well, then I don't have much recourse.
Well, yes. The PHB alone has an insufficient page count to describe a different class to fill every possible niche, so it necessarily leaves some niches unfilled in favor of those niches that designers have had time to playtest. But that's what rules expansions are for; check out the PHB II for a base class with a fighter BAB, an improved ability to wear armor while casting, and access to powerful arcane damage-dealing spells at high level.
QuoteI'm very much in favor of "insanely customizable" classes. If every member of Class X is recognizably similar to every other member of Class X, you end up with a game world that recognizably contains about a dozen distinct types of adventurer vocations, a situation which strikes me as almost comically contrived.
But if you cannot immediately recognize members of a class as being similar to one another, then do they really belong to a class. The very name "class" implies that character of the same class have quite a bit in common.
QuoteIf I absolutely have to use a class that's more of a "character template" than a flexible framework, I want that template to be something I've tailor-made to match my setting's workings, especially when we're talking about magic users.
(Technically, the flexible system you want
is a character template system. Character template systems are more flexible than straight class-and-level systems because their character creation methods resemble those of the class system, but their character advancement rules more closely resemble skill-based systems.)
QuoteI don't think WotC handled wizards and sorcerors very well at all, but that's not because I don't think there should be two classes there-- I just think there shouldn't be two versions of the same class, which is essentially what we have.
Well, yes. That's what I mean. If you want to different classes, make: Two. Different. Classes. Which WotC didn't actually do. The only reason that sorcerers and wizards are two different classes is because (and various designers have admitted this publically) the design team just couldn't decide which game mechanic they wanted to use for spell slot casters.
QuoteI remember really liking the system for supernatural stuff that Fuzion System used. They basically gave a list of powers that you could purchase individually with your character creation points: super strength, flight, mental powers, energy blasts, all that sort of thing. You get to pick all the "special effects" freely, like whether your energy blasts, if you have them, are fireballs or waves of radioactivity or whatever.
And that was pretty much the whole superpower system. If you wanted to buy a bunch of mental powers and call yourself a psychic or psionic, that's cool, but you could also call yourself a pointy-hat-wearing mind-wizard, or a Neo-like figure in a Matrix-like world, or Charles Xavier, or Miss Cleo. The actual game mechanics made no assumption about the flavor you get from using them, which was part of why I liked it so much.
Well, character-point-buy systems are skill-based systems, not class-and-level systems, so you'll never see D&D do that. D&D is the grandfather of all class-and-level systems, so I doubt that any designer will ever make an official D&D product that doesn't use a class-and-level system as its default mechanic; it would be contrary to the roots of D&D, like putting a modern engine in a classic car instead of rebuilding the original, authentic one.
Quote from: CYMRO of the TRUE Cabbage CabalQuoteWell, character-point-buy systems are skill-based systems, not class-and-level systems, so you'll never see D&D do that. D&D is the grandfather of all class-and-level systems, so I doubt that any designer will ever make an official D&D product that doesn't use a class-and-level system as its default mechanic; it would be contrary to the roots of D&D, like putting a modern engine in a classic car instead of rebuilding the original, authentic one.
I don't think so. It is "contrary" to the roots of D&D that non-human PCs have the ability to gain max levels in their classes.
It is "contrary" to the roots of D&D that good and evil are alignment options.
As gaming has evolved so has D&D. I do not doubt that WoTC, or the next owner of the D&D franchise, will follow the market; and if the market cries for a skill system, then that will be the basis of Edition X.
Quote from: CYMRO of the TRUE Cabbage CabalIt is "contrary" to the roots of D&D that non-human PCs have the ability to gain max levels in their classes.
It is "contrary" to the roots of D&D that good and evil are alignment options.
As gaming has evolved so has D&D. I do not doubt that WoTC, or the next owner of the D&D franchise, will follow the market; and if the market cries for a skill system, then that will be the basis of Edition X.[/blockquote]
I disagree. The market did cry for a D&D skill system and the foundations were laid for it (they were called the Player's Option rules, and included the infamous Skills and Powers system). But then half of the D&D demographic cried "blasphemy!" and D&D was forced to return to its roots as its demographic was split down the middle, contributing to the collapse of TSR. Virtually all of the innovations of the Player's Option rules were abandoned (except - oddly enough - the rules for attacks of opportunity).
So if D&D can't transform into a skill-based system when half of its players and the
designers are pushing a move towards a skill-based system, it will never transform into a skill-based system.
And if it did, who would play it anyway? If skill-based roleplaying is your thing, then you should already be playing GURPS or Storyteller or any number of other skill-based systems. Compared to them, some late-comer wannabe skill-based system that isn't even true to its own history is just lame, no matter how famous its name.
When I play D&D, I want to play D&D, not GURPS D&D or Stroyteller D&D. Sometimes, it's frustrating to hear how many people think that designers need to "fix" D&D by turning it into a clone of some other game system that
already exists. If you want a skill-based system, use a skill-based system. Don't trash D&D in an effort to reinvent the wheel! [/rant]
Quote from: CYMRO of the TRUE Cabbage Cabal:offtopic:
QuoteI consider the roots of a game to be the first 3 or 4 years of its existence, meaning that both Basic and Advanced D&D are the roots of present-day D&D. (And no, I don't count Chainmail.)
Then you are discounting the roots of the game.
QuoteIf you want a skill-based system, use a skill-based system. Don't trash D&D in an effort to reinvent the wheel!
I am not trashing D&D, but it is now in its seventh or eighth incarnation, and each rule change has had its defenders and detractors, and each change has been an effort to market to the tastes of the masses. Some have been failures, some have not. I am old enough to have seen most incarnations from the get go, and was cognizant of the industry enough to see how D&D has adapted and changed. It will continue to change to meet the needs of a changing market and audience. Moreso now that Hasbro owns it. This does not make that change good or bad, just a thing.
QuoteSo if D&D can't transform into a skill-based system when half of its players and the designers are pushing a move towards a skill-based system, it will never transform into a skill-based system.
Dungeons and Dragons is whatever Hasbro, or their successor, says it is. If that means losing levels, then that is what it means. TSR had the marketing savvy of baboon feces. Hasbro is different. Note how they successfully market, and profit thereby, all of those supplements they swore, just three years ago, they would never sell.
QuoteAnd if it did, who would play it anyway? If skill-based roleplaying is your thing, then you should already be playing GURPS or Storyteller or any number of other skill-based systems. Compared to them, some late-comer wannabe skill-based system that isn't even true to its own history is just lame, no matter how famous its name.
The same people who now play the current, or any version, of D&D that are looking for a change in their game.
I have never, nor will never own or play a GURPS game. Many people feel the way I do. We would rather modify our favorite, D&D/d20, than play another system. That is one of the great marketing secrets Hasbro knows about the brand they bought. Slap the D&D label on something, and you guarantee a reasonable return.
And the famous name, repackaged for a contemporary audience, is part of the selling point.
And how exactly is D&D changing with the times and the people untrue to its own history? Is that not what each edition has been about? Trying to keep the game fresh and fun for the old hands, while attracting new players to the hobby?
How can introducing a skill-based system betray that history?
If the mistitled 4th Edition has skill-based PCs rather than level-based, there will be some, maybe many, who will howl in rage and not buy it. Just as many will buy it. Hasbro will make a profit. New gamers will come to the hobby. Old gamers will buckle, or wait for 5th edition.
I, myself, gave 2nd Edition a complete miss. I went straight from 1st edition to 3.5.
I have friends who still play the original D&D.
Do not think because we want our D&D gaming experience to get better or grow with us that we are trashing it. Obviously the opposite is true, or we would not be trying to find ways to better our hobby.
Quote from: CYMRO of the TRUE Cabbage CabalI am not trashing D&D...
...but it is now in its seventh or eighth incarnation, and each rule change has had its defenders and detractors, and each change has been an effort to market to the tastes of the masses. Some have been failures, some have not. I am old enough to have seen most incarnations from the get go, and was cognizant of the industry enough to see how D&D has adapted and changed. It will continue to change to meet the needs of a changing market and audience.[/blockquote]
I like change. I have played every edition of D&D since the red box put out in the late 70's and I happen to think that every new edition has been an improvement upon the last.
But there's a difference between improving a system and just going back to the drawing board. Turning D&D into something other than a class-and-level system (or possibly a carefully-defined template system) would be creating a new game, not continuing an old one.
Imagine White Wolf turning Vampire: The Masquerade into a class-and-level based system. Would that game still be Vampire: The Masquerade in anything but name? Not really. Just so with a skills-based version of D&D.
Don't get me wrong; I like skill-based systems. In fact, I hope someone develops a skill-based version of the generic d20 System (if I don't get there first). Just don't call the skill-based d20 System "Dungeons and Dragons" because it only resembles D&D in name.
QuoteDungeons and Dragons is whatever Hasbro, or their successor, says it is. If that means losing levels, then that is what it means.
Yes, Hasbro can attach the name "Dungeons and Dragons" to anything they want; if they say that 4th Edition D&D is a new line of beach towels, then D&D is technically now a line of beach towels instead of a roleplaying game. But technically being D&D is different than being D&D in fact.
No matter what Hasbro says, "Dungeons and Dragons" is not, nor will it ever be, a line of beach towels!
QuoteI have never, nor will never own or play a GURPS game. Many people feel the way I do. We would rather modify our favorite, D&D/d20, than play another system.
Oh? What if Hasbro purchases Steve Jackson games and renames GURPS "4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons"? :P
On a more serious note, D&D and d20 are two different things. There is not one entity that can be called D&D/d20. D&D is a specific game that uses the d20 System, but the d20 System is larger than just D&D. As I mentioned earlier, I have no problem with a
d20 skill-based system; I even use one at the gaming table now and again. I just don't call it D&D.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonNote that I wasn't advocating ditchting levels and classes when I brought up Fuzion System. I was just making an example of a magic system that's highly flexible, and that doesn't make automatic statements on the way magic works in a setting that uses it.
For the most part, other than that refreshing quality, Fuzion System was really terrible.
Quote(Incidentally, that was the point of my off-topic rant. The name "Dungeons and Dragons" has certain expectations attached to it. So long as those expectations exist, calling something that does not come close to those expectations "Dungeons and Dragons" can lead to confusion. Some amount of standardization of terminology is necessary to maintain meaningful discourse.)
Considering the eight or nine different versions of D&D, those expectations are pretty low.
Someone playing OD&D has a different expectation of alignment, race, class, etcetera than either the 1E or the 3.5 player. They are different games falling under a common naming convention.
If I tell you I am playing solitaire, you may have a predudicial expectation I am playing Scorpion style, or Sea Towers, or Spider, but but it doesn't change the fact that solitaire is a word used to describe fifty or so card games.
QuoteJust don't call the skill-based d20 System "Dungeons and Dragons" because it only resembles D&D in name.
Again, the resemblance between OD&D and 3.5 is mostly in name only.
QuoteNo matter what Hasbro says, "Dungeons and Dragons" is not, nor will it ever be, a line of beach towels!
Never say never.
QuoteOh? What if Hasbro purchases Steve Jackson games and renames GURPS "4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons"?
Then I would have to rethink my attachment to D&D. Maybe start playing Tunnels and Trolls. Something about Steve Jackson makes me vomit.
Quote from: CYMRO of the TRUE Cabbage CabalSomeone playing OD&D has a different expectation of alignment, race, class, etcetera than either the 1E or the 3.5 player. They are different games falling under a common naming convention.
If I tell you I am playing solitaire, you may have a predudicial expectation I am playing Scorpion style, or Sea Towers, or Spider, but but it doesn't change the fact that solitaire is a word used to describe fifty or so card games.[/blockquote]
Yes, but if you tell me you are playing solitaire, then I expect that you are playing a card game using a stadard 52-card deck, not Magic: The Gathering. Both are card games, but solitaire is a traditional card game using a fix set of cards, whereas Magic is a TCG that uses an open-ened set of cards.
Quote[blockquote]Oh? What if Hasbro purchases Steve Jackson games and renames GURPS "4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons"?
Then I would have to rethink my attachment to D&D. Maybe start playing Tunnels and Trolls. Something about Steve Jackson makes me vomit.[/blockquote]
It is interesting that many D&D players (not necessarily you, Cymro) say they would like D&D to be a skill-based system instead of a class-and-level system, but show nothing but contempt for every existing skill-based system, some of which D&D would closely resemble if it, too, became a skill-based system.
QuoteIt is interesting that many D&D players (not necessarily you, Cymro) say they would like D&D to be a skill-based system instead of a class-and-level system, but show nothing but contempt for every existing skill-based system, some of which D&D would closely resemble if it, too, became a skill-based system.
I do not have contempt for every existing skill based system, just Steve Jackson.
Wait... is Steve Jackson a skill based system? And here I thought he was a carbon based life form! Pretty silly, eh?
Quote from: beejazzWait... is Steve Jackson a skill based system? And here I thought he was a carbon based life form! Pretty silly, eh?
Carbon based? Based on his personality, methane based, as in a steaming pile of...
dude methane is carbon based. seriously, man. seriously.
[quote Luminous Crayon]The logic behind this versatility and efficacy is that casters can do pretty much anything they like once or twice a day while non-casters can fulfill their more specialized roles until the cows come home. But the harsh reality is that once or twice a day per issue is often enough.[/quote]Rifts[/i]. Collect all 4,231 weapon towels and all 1,567 occupational character class towels! 893 racial character class towels coming soon!
Quote from: 14px"All your towels are belong to us!"[/size]
Quote from: CYMRO of the TRUE Cabbage CabalQuote from: beejazzWait... is Steve Jackson a skill based system? And here I thought he was a carbon based life form! Pretty silly, eh?
Carbon based? Based on his personality, methane based, as in a steaming pile of...
But, continuing on GURPS, the problem isn't the point-buy character creation or the skill based magic. It's that they pretty much apply THAC0 to every roll you'll ever make. It's actually kind of sad.