The Campaign Builder's Guild

Hey
Was just wondering whether any of you have any particular dislikes about standard fantasy RPG's, such as D&D and the like?
Personally there are a couple of thinks i simply can't get myself to like:

1. Interfering gods. Well, it is fantasy we're playing of course, but still, if the gods are obviously real, much of the purpose with religions seems to be gone...
2. "Out-of-the-blue" spells. I really can't understand spells such as summon monster. I know it's a stable feature of fantasy, the wizard who can summon monsters, but the whole idea just seems a bit off, especially when there are no summoning circles or anything.
3. Monsters and spell-like abilities. Though almost only an issue in D&D, i never really understood why all the monsters had to have a dozen spell-like abilities. Of course, it made them more "special", but really, i would much rather have a unique mmonster without any nonsense magical abilities.
4. Booster items. Most magic items in most games seem to revolve around simply making the character better; stronger, faster, or harder to kill. Personally, i find items that serve a single specific purpose more interesting, since their use depends on the creativity of the player, more than just boosting their skill.

Do you have similar likes or dislikes?

Well, some of yours I agree with, and some of yours I think you're just tired of particular tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage), as everyone gets tired of certain things after awhile. ;)

1 - Interfering deities is interesting, because I think it is (or at least, should be) based more on the role deities play in ones' world.  For instance, if one has a campaign setting which gods walk the lands, drink with their friends, and play golf with orc heads - let's say, in the style of David Eddings' The Belgariad - then one would expect that those gods would also constantly be interfering with and mucking up mortal lives.  

If one has a campaign world that is strongly based upon reality, such as "Real Earth," and religion is based on faith, and not the actual presence of omnipotent beings waving as passersby, then the fact of interference also comes down to faith (or lack thereof).  

Standard D&D (and other fantasy) is somewhere in the middle of those two paradigms.  Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, etc all have real, true gods, but they do not (except for specific times in history) walk the earth and chill with their earthbound compadres.  On the other hand, they are often known for sending prophecies, "Chosen Ones," avatars, and other vestiges of their power to the planet, and are often very used as the literally interpretation of deus ex machina.  And that is what I get tired of.  I think I am far beyond the days where stories based on the One True Savior, Following the Dictorates of the Gods please me and/or satisfy me in any way.  In Shadowfell, I have a world that tries to escape this particular trope.  Laugh at Fate, Live for Yourself, and Fancy Not the Gods' Whims (http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php/Shadowfell#Tone).  All that just to say I kind of agree with your first peeve.

2 - No particular problem with this - I picture that if magic even exists (which, most fantasy worlds have at least some form of arcane abilities), then there's nothing wrong with using said magic to rip a hole in reality and bring denizens from another place to one's beck and call.  Many here know that my favorite fantasy series EVER is Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn, by Tad Williams.  Magic is described in his series as essentially (not a direct quotation):

Quote from: Indirect Quote from Memory, Sorrow, and ThornOne can know the rules of the universe and the laws that make reality work.  And if one has considerable will power, he can bend those laws to manipulate reality.

3 -[/b]Really, you're talking about Core D&D, and even then, specific settings in Core D&D.  Shadowfell has monsters, and some have special abilities, but only those given to them by the stories and lore of standard legend and mythology.  For instance, dragons have abilities similar to dragons as we know of them in our real-world mythologies - they can breath fire, they can fly, they have manipulative abilities, etc.  However, other creatures in my setting (and many others that I know of on this site, and on other sites and other realities) follow similar rules of evolution that brought about my playable races.  Creatures that evolved from flying things can fly, creatures that evolved from slimy things can climb on walls, and creatures that evolved from carnivorous, cadaver-eating beasts retain many of those same properties - but they don't gain clairvoyant abilities, and don't learn to breath fire overnight.  

4 -I want to say this loud and clear - I may have never mentioned this on this site before, but I know I've at least implied this sentiment to my group over the years.  I HATE magic items as written by most standard fantasy!  I despise the premise of these items just lying around in treasure chests, awaiting adventurers to pick them up and save the world.  I can't stand the fact that there are just as many long swords +1 hanging around on merchants' guards in Forgotten Realms as there are regular long swords in our world.  The thought of magical belts that bring its wearer the strength of giants, of six different magical rings all blessed by various elemental powers, of chain mail that causes its wearer to blend better with shadows, and of boots that allow its wearer to leap tall buildings in a single bound - all being worn on the same person - brings a shudder of anger to me.  And I see it everywhere.  Not only that, but at least two members of my group aren't happy unless they are loaded for bear, like a magical Mad Max, with dozens of magic trinkets.  Shadowfell is taking a much different approach to magicality in mundane items.  All magic items are going to be treasures worth keeping, ancient artifacts that have a story and a history, and not a single one of them will ever be sold by a vendor in a street.  All items will be in the style of Midnight's covenant items, that bond with its bearer and gain more power over time, but they will be unique entities, handed down through the ages.  Players will be grateful by 10th level to have one dagger that is magically enhanced... at least, that's my plan.  Anyhoo, I digress.  Booster items suck.

I have my own pet peeves of course, but the one that really annoys me is when someone working on a setting just assumes that all creatures of similar race will follow the exact same culture.  As though events, locations, food sources, and histories have no impact whatsoever.  I mean, seriously, here on the "real world," human beings have hundreds, if not thousands of cultures just in the Taker world.  That says nothing of the hundreds or thousands more in the Leaver world.  So the thought in a setting that all humans act exactly the same as another, and all elves worship the same deities as another, and all dwarves are stone-cutting fools grates on my nerves a bit.  That's my peeve.  Hopefully someone will write an essay about it.

OMG.
You whipped this one out.  Are you crazY???? :morons:

My whole campaign and rule set is based on a list of peeves, dislikes, and actual disdain.

I don't even know where to start....
Big Picture?  Games that are not suited to the games people are playing.  If the rule system has 80-90% of their rules, spells, abilities, skills, etc based on combat, why play a roleplaying heavy game?  If the primary growth of a character is in their ability to take more damage than a dragon, then this might not be the game for immerssive role-playing.
Similarly, if 90% of the spells a character gains are useful only in combat, but the logical caNtrips and minor spells that would exist ijn a civilization have been ignored, probably not a good game for apolitical game.  
It's just blindly using the wrong tool for the job.

I can't leave this one alone.  I could go on all day.
I agree with you on the booster items. Powerful magic should be rare ond wonderful.  Magic may be understood to some degree, and lesser magic may be common, but when people actually sell the stuff in a world, or when death has no meaning except getting a priest, or when raiseing the dead is a mjid level spell, this peeves me.

I can't stand simplistic, static religions at all.  Gods are mysterious, beyond the ken of mortals, and should be treated that way, not just like slightly older and more powerful mortals.  Religions should inspire, and should be based on faith.  Not just a bunch of stupid stats in a book: that approach is what stated the whole childish, ridiculous 'epic' games.  (I'm venting, I know, and I apologize)

Quote from: LordVreegOMG.
You whipped this one out.  Are you crazY???? :morons:

My whole campaign and rule set is based on a list of peeves, dislikes, and actual disdain.

I don't even know where to start....
Big Picture?  Games that are not suited to the games people are playing.  If the rule system has 80-90% of their rules, spells, abilities, skills, etc based on combat, why play a roleplaying heavy game?  If the primary growth of a character is in their ability to take more damage than a dragon, then this might not be the game for immerssive role-playing.
Similarly, if 90% of the spells a character gains are useful only in combat, but the logical caNtrips and minor spells that would exist ijn a civilization have been ignored, probably not a good game for apolitical game.  
It's just blindly using the wrong tool for the job.

Agreed. One reason why I'm developing a subtle preference for other systems. As far as I'm concerned, d20 is the first system I played with, and even if only for sentimental reasons, I still enjoy the system. It had some flaws, sure, but I can deal with those. Not that you can't roleplay in d20, or even in Monopoly, but it's just not very well supported.

Games like, say, Vampire, on the other hand, support roleplaying very well. I'm still not convinced that I enjoy the genre enough to play the game consistently, but I do enjoy the way it seems to encourage imagination.

Okay, it's true that my dislike of interfering gods might be more due to the almost omni-present nature of them; everybody uses them (well, almost). But as LordVreeg states, it's not just that they actually exist, but also that they in many cases are simply just extremely powerful mortals. The whole mystical aspect surrounding them kind of disappears.Though there are exceptions of course. And i'm glad we are all agreed on the booster items, though i don't think that all magic items should be artifact-level; some might just be powerful "tools" that serve a specific purpose. But that might just be me. I can't say i agree with you on the Out-of-the-blue issue though. Magic is, of course, by definition the rules of physics being broken, but the thought of calling forth a sentient or semi-sentient being from nothing just makes no sense at all. Did the mage just suddenly craft an entire set of memories and knowledge/instinct? I can understand demons and elementals to a certain degree, as they are by definition so otherworldly that they clearly don't belong in this world, but i just can't wrap my head around the others...
And you're right; the really bad monsters are usually limited to the splatbooks. But i sometimes just think that they take a generally good monster concept and then give it extra hit dice and abilities, just so that it will get a higher CR.  

I feel I have to comment on the magical item overload hate mentioned here...

One way to easily strip that away is to, instead of making things +1 - +5, simply make five more degrees of masterwork. That way, you can still have a sword forged from the heartiron of the mountain of holiness, which fifty slaves bent over for a century to produce. It's not magical, but it's still pretty damn impressive. Under this, the weapon is still better than a normal masterwork weapon, but still isn't magic. Same thing for armor. This, I think, would solve quite a few problems off the bat.

If there is one thing that I hate... it is people just giving into the cliches of RPG gaming. The big one for me is the ever classic starting in a tavern. Nothing makes me want to bean my DM over the head more then that. That is just one of the very many things that is just too overused (though if done right in a parody it can be entertaining).

Well, taverns are usually the places where people meet ^^
But i can follow you; there are more interesting venues.
Anyway, as far as clichés go, i'm beginning to dislike dragons. Agreed, they are awesome in all their reptilian fury, but everybody is using them everywhere.

Quote from: Stargate525I feel I have to comment on the magical item overload hate mentioned here...

One way to easily strip that away is to, instead of making things +1 - +5, simply make five more degrees of masterwork. That way, you can still have a sword forged from the heartiron of the mountain of holiness, which fifty slaves bent over for a century to produce. It's not magical, but it's still pretty damn impressive. Under this, the weapon is still better than a normal masterwork weapon, but still isn't magic. Same thing for armor. This, I think, would solve quite a few problems off the bat.

I actually already do something similar to that, but it still doesn't solve the problem that these "More powerful than normal" items litter the world like wasted styrofoam cups.  My problem is more based on the frequency of the items.  But yeah, good idea :)

Quote from: Crippled CrowAnyway, as far as clichés go, i'm beginning to dislike dragons. Agreed, they are awesome in all their reptilian fury, but everybody is using them everywhere.

It's just about using them in interesting ways. :)  What if dragons (like in LotR, or MST) are unique entities, and they don't just spawn like rabbits?  There's a nice way to make them fearsome and interesting again without even having to put any planning into it! :)

Along the lines of Vreeg: Giving stats to gods. Once you do that, the temptation for the power gamers to try to raise their stats up to that level is well nigh irresistable.

My biggest peeve with D&D (any edition prior to 4e, I don't know enough about 4e) is the virtual impossibility of creating a magic system with any distinctive flavor to it, without redesigning the whole system.

Peeves?

Balance. Rules are meant to be broken. I prefer to either play fast and loose, making rulings based on what make sense and figuring out what the actual rules were only after the game is over or to run a horrible draconian minmaxing fest, where we adhere to the letter rather than the spirit of the law. Like the one with my cherry picked dwarf who makes four sneak attacks on every single charge.

Stuff making sense. It's not always supposed to. My city has an undercity. No one knows why. There isn't actually any reason. But it gives me an excuse to let players explore the vomitorium chamber in the underground mansion.

The assumption that what happens at the table should behave like this or that book, movie, etc. As far as my players are concerned, the literature I emulate is a tragedy. Everybody dies sooner or later, and if the PCs play long enough, they're likely to see it happen at the table. It's not about living forever or pwning every badguy. It's about making the best of the time you've got and having a good run.

Scheduling conflicts. They screw up games more often than anything in the books.

Magic that I don't get. Realism be damned. I should be able to figure out fairly easily by looking at their sheets what my characters are capable of. No on the fly. No stupidly modifiable point buy.

Magic that's dumbed down so I can get it. Every spell (or whatever it is in your world) should do something different. There don't need to be 450 spells for lighting people on fire somehow.

Players that quickly have what in the setting would be more money than god. Most players will go along with what hooks the GM will give them, but I like having money still be scarce and therefore important enough to motivate the PCs. In fact, I prefer it to the "imminent danger to you" motivation, just because it's a bit of a stretch to keep the PCs constantly in danger somehow.

Combat where PCs and NPCs constantly exchange blows in an uninteresting manner. Hit/miss/damage if hit. Repeat until death.

Combat that's chock full of signature moves to "spice things up", but which devolves into the former scenario, because an attack is still an attack no matter what you call it.

XP systems. I'm sorry, but level ups don't have to be that complicated. "You level up when the GM says so." would suffice.

On a note related to Vreeg's comments:
[blockquote=LordVreeg]If the primary growth of a character is in their ability to take more damage than a dragon, then this might not be the game for immerssive [sic] role-playing.[/blockquote]
I'd like to see a game with some kind of reasonable rules or mechanics for development that is NOT just improvement in combat and personal skills. Such as a system for increasing influence and/or reputation in ways that are fairly hard and crunchy rather soft and fluffy.

Ideally, these kind of rules would work alongside the regular sort of personal improvement. This would allow the character's development as a hero in the social sense - influence and reputation - as well as the personal sense - heroic skills and powers.

[blockquote=Snakefing]My biggest peeve with D&D (any edition prior to 4e, I don't know enough about 4e) is the virtual impossibility of creating a magic system with any distinctive flavor to it, without redesigning the whole system.[/blockquote]
That's why I had to make my own.
First off, in a swords & Sorcery style game, magic is crucial.  It is a cornerstone, and magic is normally tied to the cosmology and creation of the world as well, or should be.  So I do believe the creative muse is skewed or partially squelched when someone just plugs in a basic, generic system.  If you say you created your setting, and your mages are casting magic missle as a first level spells, you created a lot less than other people in the CBG.  Love this place and all you guys, but this is just plain speaking.

[blockquote=Beeb]XP systems. I'm sorry, but level ups don't have to be that complicated. "You level up when the GM says so." would suffice.[/blockquote]  Totally disagree.  Love and all props to the mad artman, but I will always believe that setting up growth rewards based on anything but quantifiable responses to actions was when D&D stopped being an adult game that some intelligent teenagers played and started becoming a game aimed towards kids.  Make them earn it.  
One of the first things I did was directly setting up a system where each skill used got experience in that skill.
Leading to another Kvetch...
I hate systems that make your finding traps skills go up when you kill something!!!!!!
I killed something.   That should only make me get better at Killing Things.
When a character uses 'Basic Contact' to find a certain person in a city, they should get better at that ability...not get better hit points.  AAARRRR!

Quote from: LordVreeg[blockquote=Beeb]XP systems. I'm sorry, but level ups don't have to be that complicated. "You level up when the GM says so." would suffice.[/blockquote]  Totally disagree.  Love and all props to the mad artman, but I will always believe that setting up growth rewards based on anything but quantifiable responses to actions was when D&D stopped being an adult game that some intelligent teenagers played and started becoming a game aimed towards kids.  Make them earn it.  
One of the first things I did was directly setting up a system where each skill used got experience in that skill.
Leading to another Kvetch...
I hate systems that make your finding traps skills go up when you kill something!!!!!!
I killed something.   That should only make me get better at Killing Things.
When a character uses 'Basic Contact' to find a certain person in a city, they should get better at that ability...not get better hit points.  AAARRRR!

I should revise that to "XP systems for level-based advancement." Your thing, where players advance their skills based on what skills they use, or a well done xp mass where skill and ability enhancement have set costs... that's its own thing, and is cool. I go with level based advancement for convenience and ease of use as opposed to realism. It's better to be easy *or* realistic than to utilize mechanics for both and end up being neither. xp systems for level ups isn't easy, and often doesn't add anything in terms of realism/flexibility either.

Quote from: LVFirst off, in a swords & Sorcery style game, magic is crucial. It is a cornerstone, and magic is normally tied to the cosmology and creation of the world as well, or should be. So I do believe the creative muse is skewed or partially squelched when someone just plugs in a basic, generic system. If you say you created your setting, and your mages are casting magic missle as a first level spells, you created a lot less than other people in the CBG. Love this place and all you guys, but this is just plain speaking.

Hmm... Goodness knows I've been a vocal advocate of cooking up from-scratch magic systems, but I don't think that using familiar, prepackaged options indicates any creativity deficiency. Plenty of people use stock magic systems as-is or with only minor variation, but plenty of people also use stock fantasy races (dwarves, elves, goblins, trolls, etc.) as-is or with only minor variations-- even people who protest that their dwarves, for example, have nothing whatsoever to do with D&D dwarves are still piggybacking on decades of literature and centuries of mythology and superstition. I don't buy the argument that reusing one is a cardinal sin, but reusing the other is not even worth mentioning.

I mean, sure I cook my own chicken, but I still make my cornbread from a box.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

Quote from: LVFirst off, in a swords & Sorcery style game, magic is crucial. It is a cornerstone, and magic is normally tied to the cosmology and creation of the world as well, or should be. So I do believe the creative muse is skewed or partially squelched when someone just plugs in a basic, generic system. If you say you created your setting, and your mages are casting magic missle as a first level spells, you created a lot less than other people in the CBG. Love this place and all you guys, but this is just plain speaking.

Nope, sorry, don't buy it.
(this is a peeve thread, so I'm being peeved...But more enjoying the exchange)

Everything else you mentioned is a component, a few lines or a chapter of a rulebook.  And still, I think everyone here takes the time to make them their own to a large degree.
But magic is like gravity.  It is often a universal law (or it isn't at all) and is often at a fundamental level of how or why the universe exists.  Reusing or even traslating  and changing whole races is on a completely different level.  Go look up how big the description of elves is in any rulebook.  Now look at how much space is devoted to the spellbooks.  You're comparing 'bazooka joe' with 'Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn', and giving them equal weight.

Or in other words, take trolls or elves out of the game, minor change.  Take out magic, and you're probably playing at a table by yourself.

Now, to go back on that and partially agree with you...I give some credit for those who change things to make them their own, but that should also apply for those who take portions of a prepackaged system and make the same kind of changes to make it their own.  It is just that magic is a cornerstone issue...thus it should be one of the first things looked at to make a setting unique.  

Quote from: some dudeAww man, no bards in your world? :( :( :(

and that was the last I heard from him.

Man, I'm a musician by trade, but I don't get the logic behind turning down a perfectly good game just because you can't play a prancing, dancing dope (even though it'd be even easier to play a social-specialized/combat-support character!) So, apparently some people are actually that picky?

Man, that was a big tangent.

You mihgt have seen how important Bards are in the social strata of Celtricia.  They are one of the major bridges from the high to the low.

I am definitly going to start a new bardic salon in Igbar called the 'Prancing, Dancing Dope'.

Quote from: LordVreegYou mihgt have seen how important Bards are in the social strata of Celtricia.  They are one of the major bridges from the high to the low.

Not every important profession needs its own character class and commensurate magic power, though. (Edit: Especially in settings like most typical D&D fare, where, unlike in Celtricia, absolutely no attention is played to the social and societal functions of musicians, anyway.)

QuoteI am definitly going to start a new bardic salon in Igbar called the 'Prancing, Dancing Dope'.

I'd join.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

Quote from: LordVreegYou mihgt have seen how important Bards are in the social strata of Celtricia.  They are one of the major bridges from the high to the low.

Not every important profession needs its own character class and commensurate magic power, though. (Edit: Especially in settings like most typical D&D fare, where, unlike in Celtricia, absolutely no attention is played to the social and societal functions of musicians, anyway.)

QuoteI am definitly going to start a new bardic salon in Igbar called the 'Prancing, Dancing Dope'.

Dude, you know I'm classless...
(cue drumroll)
I merely have selections of skills and different places to learn them.  There is no difference between how a baker or a knight is handled.

Prancing, Dancing Dopes: they patrons of those salons in my settings usually aren't bards, tho' most of them *think* they are (and dress like rogues. no, wait, in 3.5, they dress like "sorcerers". . .)

Slightly more seriously (the previous wasn't really a joke. . .) one thing they did for bards late in 2.0 that I liked was set up a framework for performance careers. The class emphasis was very much on bards as, well, *bards* - the class abilities were part of the background of a performer in a magic-active fantasy setting. Troubadours might be a better term for the class, but anyway, they set up a means of tracking performance, popularity and fame. Suddenly in 3.x, bards had to have Perform skills, but actually using them to *perform* in public was a side note for picking up a few silver in between game sessions! I like the idea that bards actually do more than gyrate in front of drooling groupies (though they should certainly be provided in game opportunity to do that too,) along the lines of the social (and mythological) significance/roles of Celtic Bards and Scandinavian Skalds - but those guys were kick-ass performing artists, "kick-ass" just meant in that context what most rappers want to pretend it means now. . .

The preceding has been a Public Service Announcement from the Curmudgeons' Guild Local 23.

I got a couple to kick into the fire...

1) Classes. Period. Make a character that can do what you want him to do, as you progress let him learn you need him to, and call yourself whatever makes sence to NPCs of the world. Ex. You should be able to call yourself a knight without having to take the Paladine Class (or Knight from PHB2). However to call yourself a knight your character should show himself be "knight-like" what was that called again... oh yes Role Playing! Yes that right let the players role playing outline what TYPE of person he is and how he should act. Let the Setting react apropriatly. (i guess that was kinda two rants sandwiched into one.. heh)

2) Stupid/Bloodthirsty Orks. Orc are feared warriors and their armies/hoards terrorise nations and continents yet they cant speak a full sentence to each other even in common or orkish. Orks have a society and no 95% of Orks are not male hunters. There are villages, communities, families, baby and children Orks. They do more than sit around in a 10x10 room or a 5x40 corridor defending something they could sell or use. They should be as cunning (not intellegence, but wisdom and instincts) as elves are arrogant/noble.

3)6 feet tall and bullet proof... well untill 0 hp then yer toast. The full power untill you drop problem isnt everywhere there are systems out there that do it better (and i hope "bloodied" in 4e is as good and debilitating as i hope but i doubt it)

4) Charisma: mainly how its used and percieved in recent RPG. there should not be a roled stat limiting (or forceing and pushing you) how friendly/likeable you can act when you ROLEPLAY. Hard stats should not replace roleplaying. Imagine the Player is acting like a dirk insulting his daughter and local town and then asks the shopkeep for a discount. DM "Uh no...?" Player "But i got a 17 charisma for a +5 with a bonus from my ring (Buff magic) i rolled 17 he HAS to give me the discount now" BANG BANG BANG the DMs head on the table. Not in MY world buddy...
and you can count me in on about half the ones posted already.

probebly got more but i am tired, just got home from work and going to bed. Any other good peeves?

I know this isn't the place for it, but I'm trying to come down off of a long posted assertion-whupping in an online debate...

Quote from: Lath1) Classes. Period. Make a character that can do what you want him to do, as you progress let him learn you need him to, and call yourself whatever makes sence to NPCs of the world. Ex. You should be able to call yourself a knight without having to take the Paladine Class (or Knight from PHB2). However to call yourself a knight your character should show himself be "knight-like" what was that called again... oh yes Role Playing! Yes that right let the players role playing outline what TYPE of person he is and how he should act. Let the Setting react apropriatly. (i guess that was kinda two rants sandwiched into one.. heh)

No one says that because you took the fighter class everyone in the world calls you a fighter. Heck, the majority of my nobility has levels of rogue, but no one calls them that except for a very few, and always with the word 'dashing' in front of it.

Quote from: Lath2) Stupid/Bloodthirsty Orks. Orc are feared warriors and their armies/hoards terrorise nations and continents yet they cant speak a full sentence to each other even in common or orkish. Orks have a society and no 95% of Orks are not male hunters. There are villages, communities, families, baby and children Orks. They do more than sit around in a 10x10 room or a 5x40 corridor defending something they could sell or use. They should be as cunning (not intellegence, but wisdom and instincts) as elves are arrogant/noble.

Nothing here to say except that it's laid out in the rules, it's just that the majority of people simply ignore it. Change starts with you. As for your comparison on elves... re-read the entire personality description of the elf in the PHB. ;)

Quote from: Lath3)6 feet tall and bullet proof... well untill 0 hp then yer toast. The full power untill you drop problem isnt everywhere there are systems out there that do it better (and i hope "bloodied" in 4e is as good and debilitating as i hope but i doubt it)

Meh, it's an abstraction. It's something I sit on the fence about, but I see your point. It's also a simple bolt-on to fix; simply assign penalties you feel are appropriate at certain fractions of health remaining.  

Quote from: Lath4) Charisma: mainly how its used and percieved in recent RPG. there should not be a roled stat limiting (or forceing and pushing you) how friendly/likeable you can act when you ROLEPLAY. Hard stats should not replace roleplaying. Imagine the Player is acting like a dirk insulting his daughter and local town and then asks the shopkeep for a discount. DM "Uh no...?" Player "But i got a 17 charisma for a +5 with a bonus from my ring (Buff magic) i rolled 17 he HAS to give me the discount now" BANG BANG BANG the DMs head on the table. Not in MY world buddy...

You're forgetting the -10 bonus for insulting the daughter in front of the shopkeeper, the -10 for insulting the town, and the fact that these actions have dropped his attitude a couple of points from when you first walked in.

Again, the rules and guidelines are there, it's just that nobody uses them correctly.

Quote from: Lath[...]

3)6 feet tall and bullet proof... well untill 0 hp then yer toast. The full power untill you drop problem isnt everywhere there are systems out there that do it better (and i hope "bloodied" in 4e is as good and debilitating as i hope but i doubt it)

Wrong. You need some sort of abstraction, otherwise all gaming grinds down to who gets initative and one-shots the other guy first (similar to how high-level casters are in 3.5). Now, how many swords to the gut can you take? Bullets to the chest? Severed major arteries? 3rd degree burns on 50% of your body?

And this abstraction is provided by HP. Other systems (especially WoD's damage track) fall also quite unelegantly flat on their faces because they are not meant to simulate reality, but merely provide some sort of abstraction (although in a different way).

Quote from: Lath4) Charisma: mainly how its used and percieved in recent RPG. there should not be a roled stat limiting (or forceing and pushing you) how friendly/likeable you can act when you ROLEPLAY. Hard stats should not replace roleplaying. Imagine the Player is acting like a dirk insulting his daughter and local town and then asks the shopkeep for a discount. DM "Uh no...?" Player "But i got a 17 charisma for a +5 with a bonus from my ring (Buff magic) i rolled 17 he HAS to give me the discount now" BANG BANG BANG the DMs head on the table. Not in MY world buddy...
and you can count me in on about half the ones posted already. [...]

On the contrary. Imho stats should be the decisive thing to consider when roleplaying social interactions. Oh my, if I had a dollar for every occasion when the Cha 10 Diplomacy 0 guy was making deals with NPCs because the PLAYER was having a good way with words.

Again, if you allow PLAYER knowledge to impact social interaction (for which there are mechanics), then you must allow PLAYER knowledge to impact combat interaction, e.g. allowing a character to kill someone in battle because the player describes some uber-leet stunt he learned in his fencing class.

And as for your example... ever heard of "circumstance penalties"? ;)

Quote from: LordVreeg[...] I hate systems that make your finding traps skills go up when you kill something!!!!!![...]

Then probably most of game systems are out of the window for you. :P

Seriously, most systems use either level-based advancement, or some sort of "buy better skills and stuff with XPs" advancement. The latter also has your problem (aka "I survived the orc ambush and now spend XPs to increase my Basketweaving skill").

A simple solution I suggested like decades ago when I was still working on the Worldgate setting was that you track the number of successful uses of each skill (Elder Scrolls style) and have the skill automatically increase when a certain number of successes was reached. It was shot down quickly as "too much bookkeeping", "too complicated", "not worth the hassle", etc.

Well... :dots:

Runequest had a system where you could only improve a skill by using it. I never played it but I heard that in some cases the result was that people would try their skills on anything, like having everybody in the group try to pick a lock even though they had basically no chance, just to spread the chance for skill improvement around.

XP doesn't really bother me too much, but the D&D peeve is just that they have elaborate systems for determining XP for certain types of things (e.g., killing things) and no guidelines at all for other things.

Quote from: Ra-TielA simple solution I suggested like decades ago when I was still working on the Worldgate setting was that you track the number of successful uses of each skill (Elder Scrolls style) and have the skill automatically increase when a certain number of successes was reached. It was shot down quickly as "too much bookkeeping", "too complicated", "not worth the hassle", etc.

Well... :dots:

Have you considered just keeping track of which skills a player uses in a game session period rather than how many times they use that game? If you're using a roll-under system, you can wait till the end of the session, have each player pick one skill they used during the session to level up, and try to roll over it. If they do, increase it by some preset amount.

Or if you're rolling over, reverse the formula, and roll under to see if you advance.

Quote from: beeblebrox

Quote from: Ra-TielA simple solution I suggested like decades ago when I was still working on the Worldgate setting was that you track the number of successful uses of each skill (Elder Scrolls style) and have the skill automatically increase when a certain number of successes was reached. It was shot down quickly as "too much bookkeeping", "too complicated", "not worth the hassle", etc.

Well... :dots:

Have you considered just keeping track of which skills a player uses in a game session period rather than how many times they use that game? If you're using a roll-under system, you can wait till the end of the session, have each player pick one skill they used during the session to level up, and try to roll over it. If they do, increase it by some preset amount.

Or if you're rolling over, reverse the formula, and roll under to see if you advance.

Um, we actually keep experience in each skill.  This was in direct response to me being ticked off at the other types of systems.  You get a little experience when you fail, more if you succeed.
(taking damage gets you experience in HP...it's kind of fun...)

That would no doubt make for interesting training session conversation.

'So remind me why we're using real swords?'
'makes ya tougher damnit!'

Quote from: LordVreeg(taking damage gets you experience in HP...it's kind of fun...)

Like LARPing "Victoria Fantasy" in most inner city dungeons. . .

Quote from: beeblebroxPlayers that quickly have what in the setting would be more money than god. Most players will go along with what hooks the GM will give them, but I like having money still be scarce and therefore important enough to motivate the PCs. In fact, I prefer it to the "imminent danger to you" motivation, just because it's a bit of a stretch to keep the PCs constantly in danger somehow.

I think this can be very DM/GM specific, though. You can always take a bit of inspiration from Cowboy Bebop when handling financial issues; just because they're earning big rewards doesn't mean they aren't accidentally also running up almost equally big collateral expenses. Therefore, big rewards don't mean that the characters aren't struggling, financially.

QuoteCombat where PCs and NPCs constantly exchange blows in an uninteresting manner. Hit/miss/damage if hit. Repeat until death.

Yeah, I've run into this in d20, too. I try to spice it up a bit with flavor, but I can't do that consistently under that system. Although, it's much easier with exceptional rolls, whether good or bad, and on either my part or the players. I've had shifters trip over animal companions, falling face first into sewage, I've had kobolds who's last words were "iiitt'sss juuuusstt a fleeesshhwooouuund!!!", and more. In my games, the exceptional rolls are where the fun really shines.

Quote from: Sdr$g$n1984I think this can be very DM/GM specific, though. You can always take a bit of inspiration from Cowboy Bebop when handling financial issues; just because they're earning big rewards doesn't mean they aren't accidentally also running up almost equally big collateral expenses. Therefore, big rewards don't mean that the characters aren't struggling, financially.

from the shop you trashed, and the medical bill for that policeman, and the... [long list of stuff I can't remember] ...KILLED THE DOUGH." Bell peppers and beef.

QuoteYeah, I've run into this in d20, too. I try to spice it up a bit with flavor, but I can't do that consistently under that system. Although, it's much easier with exceptional rolls, whether good or bad, and on either my part or the players. I've had shifters trip over animal companions, falling face first into sewage, I've had kobolds who's last words were "iiitt'sss juuuusstt a fleeesshhwooouuund!!!", and more. In my games, the exceptional rolls are where the fun really shines.

Oh, the descriptive stuff on the good rolls is definitely cool. We play with a critical hit deck, so crazy stuff happens every now and again.

On a semi-related note, a (mostly DM-related) peeve:

Combat systems (or more rarely, other mechanics) crammed full of ways for characters to have fools made of them.

One of my first gaming experiences was with a D20-based Star Wars game, with all the players being Jedi. Instead of interpreting a rolled 1 on a D20 as an automatic miss/failure, the GM was treating it as the kind of failure you might find in a slapstick show. Jedi essentially tripping on their own shoelaces, falling on the ground, and cutting themselves on their own blades. People dropping things, bumping into each other, accidentally knocking each other down.

Yeah, it was pretty descriptive combat, but I couldn't help but think: We're supposed to be heroes, with mystical powers and preternatural balance and coordination and awareness to boot. Isn't this Three Stooges bit a little below us?

another DM peeve...
(and a shout out to SG525 for working this)

non-original spell names and functions...
If anyone has been going through LC's magic systems and the different types of magic, they'll see a rich grouping of magic that helps make the setting unique..
(no Ork magic there!)

By contrast, so many settings that are supposedly original are still stuck in the 'sleep, magic missle, fireball--malaise'  At least change the frackin' names to something setting specific...

Wow, a lot of hate for a bunch of stuff.  I'm almost afraid to post for fear that people will not like what I say.

I hate my "+Just Enough" bonus against Peer-Induced Fear.

(in no particular order)
1) They Are Inherently Evil: This isn't just dealing with low-level mortals like orcs and misinterpreting their "Usually Evil" listing, this goes all the way up.  Demons, things with a lot of tentacles, undead, whatever.  If they have any sort of description like "evil because they are made of evil" or "possessing an eternal hatred of the living" or even "their entire species is terribly cruel but for maybe a few exceptions" I have an ingrained reaction to loathe it.   :axe:   I couldn't tell you exactly why: Maybe I have a world-view such that this is where I draw the line of "too unrealistic".  Maybe I think it's unfair to the creatures involved: equal rights for all.  *shrug*

[Note: If it's information reporting on how the creature is portrayed in real-world myths it doesn't bother me.  Try wrapping your head around that.]

2) Call of Cthulhu, Midnight, or You Can't Win: If you can't win then why are you trying?  I get that some people like these sorts of games, and I appreciate entertainment scarcity enough that I don't deny anyone who wants that sort of game their play.  I just don't get it.  [Friendly warning: Don't try to explain it, it won't work.]

3) Well, We Have A War Over Here, Meanwhile A Secret Group of X Is Secretly Taking Over So They Can Literally Unleash Hell'¦'¦'¦: It's like #2: if you're world is going to Hell, you can either A) go there first and beat the rush, B) grab a torch and help it along because it's #$&%*-up anyway.  I don't mind a little war or a bit of conspiracy (though they do have to be small, I'll admit), but after I certain point I feel like beating my head over all the complex implications of every single action I could take.  I'm a simple person who needs simple problems, anything more and it's time to set up my folding chair on the sideline and laugh.

4) Wow, Magic Is Now Rare, Gosh It Got A Lot Cooler: I used to hate the idea of low-magic settings, or really any setting where there was some reason people didn't like using magic/having magic around.  However my favorite series is Discworld, so I've become accustomed to the idea that magic may be something people don't want to use and/or is dangerous enough to keep it away from people.  What I still hate is the idea that this kind of setting makes magic cool.  It just doesn't work out for me: it's magic you already don't have it in real life and it's spectacular even when it's subtle.  If it's rare then it's just not showing up much and there doesn't seem to be any point to the move.  "Rare magic" should mean something other than "so now it's cool".

5) Humans Are the Adaptable Ones: The more I come to learn about cultures around the world the less I think humans are all that diverse.  What I'd like to see is some settings where humans aren't the only ones given the "anything goes" approach.

6) The World Works How We Think It Does: This is a little tricky to articulate: There are certain ideas that exist in the real world where humans have taken their own ideas to be truth rather than what the world around them shows.  Mind over Matter.  Good and Evil.  There are also fantasy versions that I hate: e.g. Words have Power.  And there are also some tropes that I don't mind quite as much: death and chaos are bad things, for example.  I really feel these are a form of supreme arrogance on the part of humans and would rather see settings in which they didn't appear or turned out to be controlled by other sentient minds using non-sentient powers.


Well, these have been my peeves.  I hope I haven't ticked anyone off.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw1) They Are Inherently Evil:

5) Humans Are the Adaptable Ones:

These, though, I totally, strongly agree with you about. Especially #5: giving all your cultures a sort of description except for one, and just saying "well, they're adaptable!", seems like a signal that you've run out of ideas. (Whether you're saying it about humans or about anything else.)

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw[...]
4) Wow, Magic Is Now Rare, Gosh It Got A Lot Cooler: I used to hate the idea of low-magic settings [...]

There are usually two types of "low magic" that get easily confused.

Type A: Magic is rare but still somewhat powerful.

Type B: Magic is powerless but relatively common.

The problem with type A is that if you allow a rpg in such a setting, that suddenly 9 out of 10 PCs are those "rare" one in a million wizards.

The problem with type B is that why in the Nine Hells should anyone ever study magic if they can't really influence the game with it?

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawWow, a lot of hate for a bunch of stuff.  I'm almost afraid to post for fear that people will not like what I say.

I hate my "+Just Enough" bonus against Peer-Induced Fear.

(in no particular order)
1) They Are Inherently Evil: This isn't just dealing with low-level mortals like orcs and misinterpreting their "Usually Evil" listing, this goes all the way up.  Demons, things with a lot of tentacles, undead, whatever.  If they have any sort of description like "evil because they are made of evil" or "possessing an eternal hatred of the living" or even "their entire species is terribly cruel but for maybe a few exceptions" I have an ingrained reaction to loathe it.   :axe:   I couldn't tell you exactly why: Maybe I have a world-view such that this is where I draw the line of "too unrealistic".  Maybe I think it's unfair to the creatures involved: equal rights for all.  *shrug*

[Note: If it's information reporting on how the creature is portrayed in real-world myths it doesn't bother me.  Try wrapping your head around that.]

2) Call of Cthulhu, Midnight, or You Can't Win: If you can't win then why are you trying?  I get that some people like these sorts of games, and I appreciate entertainment scarcity enough that I don't deny anyone who wants that sort of game their play.  I just don't get it.  [Friendly warning: Don't try to explain it, it won't work.]

3) Well, We Have A War Over Here, Meanwhile A Secret Group of X Is Secretly Taking Over So They Can Literally Unleash Hell'¦'¦'¦: It's like #2: if you're world is going to Hell, you can either A) go there first and beat the rush, B) grab a torch and help it along because it's #$&%*-up anyway.  I don't mind a little war or a bit of conspiracy (though they do have to be small, I'll admit), but after I certain point I feel like beating my head over all the complex implications of every single action I could take.  I'm a simple person who needs simple problems, anything more and it's time to set up my folding chair on the sideline and laugh.

4) Wow, Magic Is Now Rare, Gosh It Got A Lot Cooler: I used to hate the idea of low-magic settings, or really any setting where there was some reason people didn't like using magic/having magic around.  However my favorite series is Discworld, so I've become accustomed to the idea that magic may be something people don't want to use and/or is dangerous enough to keep it away from people.  What I still hate is the idea that this kind of setting makes magic cool.  It just doesn't work out for me: it's magic you already don't have it in real life and it's spectacular even when it's subtle.  If it's rare then it's just not showing up much and there doesn't seem to be any point to the move.  "Rare magic" should mean something other than "so now it's cool".

5) Humans Are the Adaptable Ones: The more I come to learn about cultures around the world the less I think humans are all that diverse.  What I'd like to see is some settings where humans aren't the only ones given the "anything goes" approach.

6) The World Works How We Think It Does: This is a little tricky to articulate: There are certain ideas that exist in the real world where humans have taken their own ideas to be truth rather than what the world around them shows.  Mind over Matter.  Good and Evil.  There are also fantasy versions that I hate: e.g. Words have Power.  And there are also some tropes that I don't mind quite as much: death and chaos are bad things, for example.  I really feel these are a form of supreme arrogance on the part of humans and would rather see settings in which they didn't appear or turned out to be controlled by other sentient minds using non-sentient powers.


Well, these have been my peeves.  I hope I haven't ticked anyone off.

ticked anyone off?  This is not that kind of thread.  I think this has been a great thread for just getting stuff off our chests and finding out what other GM's think about different games.  I think it's great you posted this, there is no right or wrong.  I already goaded one person that shall remain namelsss (SG_2_, not that I said it) into working his magic out.

I totally agree about the inherently evil schtick.  Especially for races that exist side by side in the world.
And in my setting, hobyt's are the adaptable ones...

Quote from: LordVreeg[...] I totally agree about the inherently evil schtick.  Especially for races that exist side by side in the world.

Not necessarily. I'd rather have an "inherently evil" race that actually sticks with that scheme, instead of the drow as they are presented in the FR. On one hand they are incredibly cruel, and nasty, and make their junior priestresses getting knocked up by a glabrezu in a ritual initiation orgy. On the other hand good olde Ed said that ~10% of all drow worship Eilistraee, a chaotic good hedonistic moon goddess. :-/

Quote from: LordVreegAnd in my setting, hobyt's are the adaptable ones...

Imho, having a single race being "adaptable" leads to only one possible consequence: one available race to choose from. Evolution holds true, even - and perhaps even more so - in a fantastic world with magic and dragons and demons and other stuff that can devestate whole regions in a few hours' time.

A race that is unable to adapt to a certain environmental impuls (a change in the sun's light, the appearance of magic, a strange disease, ...) is going to die. Plain and simple. No exceptions but extremely heavy DM handwaving.

I gotta agree about adaptability and generalization vs specialization in species and evolution. (Bucky Fuller said a lot bout this. . .) One thing that I do look at regarding humans is a great syncretic ingenuity - reflected in language as well as culture and technology, but then on Panisadore they are a genetic syncretism to begin with, even though they've long forgotten this fact. All the races display a great deal of evolutionary adaption, particularly in cultural terms; humans simply have a flare for fusion and synthesis constituting an evolutionary mechanism far less prominent in other races.

I've found it interesting to note how many of the pet peeves people bring up here are actually present in Panisadore. However, I at least like to think that, rather than discarding them, I'm successfully going back and reworking the common tropes and assumptions into distinctly new and different forms and manifestations which eliminate the reasons they annoy.

D&D has always held a lot of simplifications become stereotypes that drive me nuts - especially since there was never any actual reason in the game itself to hold onto many of them. I recall someone who liked to play paladins (in 1st ed.) who absolutely insisted that the class *must* remain strictly celibate *as written* even though he could point to no source for this. ("I've been playing paladins for years, so I know. . .") gah!

James W. Loewen loves you.
[blockquote=S&M]
I gotta agree about adaptability and generalization vs specialization in species and evolution. (Bucky Fuller said a lot bout this. . .) One thing that I do look at regarding humans is a great syncretic ingenuity - reflected in language as well as culture and technology, but then on Panisadore they are a genetic syncretism to begin with, even though they've long forgotten this fact. All the races display a great deal of evolutionary adaption, particularly in cultural terms; humans simply have a flare for fusion and synthesis constituting an evolutionary mechanism far less prominent in other races.[/blockquote]

What do I hate?  When my favorite creative collusion site reduces scope dramtically and every third thread is about any particular thing (or rule system).  I'm here to read the creative work of others, to be contructive in helping them, to see the rules they create around their setting that make them unique, to get feedback on my own posts.  I love the crunch postings lately by Snakefing and SG525 lately.  I love commenting on the Wiki, and teling folks what is shining brightest...
[/bitch]

Quote from: beeblebrox

Quote from: Sdr$g$n1984

QuoteI think this can be very DM/GM specific, though. You can always take a bit of inspiration from Cowboy Bebop when handling financial issues; just because they're earning big rewards doesn't mean they aren't accidentally also running up almost equally big collateral expenses. Therefore, big rewards don't mean that the characters aren't struggling, financially.

from the shop you trashed, and the medical bill for that policeman, and the... [long list of stuff I can't remember] ...KILLED THE DOUGH." Bell peppers and beef.

Exactly. If I'm not mistaken, there were similar statements in several episodes, and the logic is implicit throughout the entire show. In fact, I think Mushroom Samba is the only episode where they ended up poor because they didn't get a big reward.

QuoteYeah, I've run into this in d20, too. I try to spice it up a bit with flavor, but I can't do that consistently under that system. Although, it's much easier with exceptional rolls, whether good or bad, and on either my part or the players. I've had shifters trip over animal companions, falling face first into sewage, I've had kobolds who's last words were "iiitt'sss juuuusstt a fleeesshhwooouuund!!!", and more. In my games, the exceptional rolls are where the fun really shines.

For my group, it's not just the critical hits, but the critical fumbles, too. While  LC might not like it, I know my group likes the occasional "slapstick" event. Granted, I don't limit it to just the PCs, so that might help a bit. Usually, for my group, the ridiculous effects of a fumble helps lighten up the mood of an otherwise really sucky roll.

1. Pointy eared races
2. Settings where magic is overly common
3. Settings where magic is for sale.  In my opinion magic items should be rare and totally unique.
4. Dungeons that hold anything other than a foul smell and prisoners.

Quote from: Kirksmithicus1. Pointy eared races
2. Settings where magic is overly common
3. Settings where magic is for sale.  In my opinion magic items should be rare and totally unique.
4. Dungeons that hold anything other than a foul smell and prisoners.

I like the way you think. :yumm:

Quote from: Raelifin

Quote from: Kirksmithicus1. Pointy eared races
2. Settings where magic is overly common
3. Settings where magic is for sale.  In my opinion magic items should be rare and totally unique.
4. Dungeons that hold anything other than a foul smell and prisoners.

I like the way you think. :yumm:

Ditto. Except that gnolls have pointy ears, and I like them. And other canine races.

Ooo, maybe elves should have big old floppy furry golden retriever ears in my next setting. And big slobbery tongues.

glad to see the thread revived after its short hiatus.
I don't mind the pointy-eared-ness by itself, when it is used to make a race seem more bestial, but when the only defining characteristic is pointy ears, i can't help but agree. As far as dungeons go, i like "dungeon adventures" but they hardly ever make sense. Who the hell would pay for something like that?

I actually like pointy-ears too. I just don't like elves. (Or halflings, for that matter. Or just about every race that feels copy-pasted into a world.)

I find I don't mind "humans with pointy ears" so long as they're played up.  For example, Discworld has dwarves and their standard fantasy dwarves, but everything about the stereotype has been played up to the point at which you feel like they're an original creation.  (Playing the trope for laughs is also acceptable.)

MY GLASS IS 1/3 FULL AND CRACKED...

Ressurection/Raise dead IN MOST SETTINGS.  Ishy and I were babbling about spells that change the rules last night, and this one has always cracked me up.  

I know there are limitations, but with the amount of people who can cure diseases, prevent injuries, and raise the damn dead in a normal kingdom, it's a wonder that any human, hobbit, or short-ish lifespanned nobleman ever dies, not to mention rich merchants, etc.  Even in my setting with small amounts of high power magic, it is very common practise to mutilate a body after you kill it.  There are no longevity potions in Celtricia, or longevity spells.  

Well, the duke's son has the clap again, but their are 12 priests within walking distance who would love to help him out...I think this would cause the discrepancy between the rich and poor to increase exponentially...some of those priest can do this 4-5 times a day.
[/rant]

Settings where the number of intelligent monsters > number of intelligent humanoids.

Game systems with morality/alignment as a mechanic.

@ Vreeg: With ya on that one. I actually removed magical healing in my world, in addition to resurrection. Well, not really, but stopping blood flow is not the same as "boom, you're at full hp."

1. Magic: I want it to be mostly ritually based. Drawings of circles, mixing of materials, communing with Demonic/Angels/Gods or something that is inherently magical, or useing your own (or others) blood. Magic should take time. You won't see wizards and sorcerers casting fireballs and the like, but you might see them animating objects, raising the dead, blocking out the sun, etc.

2. Magic Items: Your +1 magical swords, bags of holding, and the like should be rare. They should be coveted. Think of how magic was handled in Lord Of the Rings, and that's about how I think these items should be. Magical Bread, cloaks, a sword, etc. Those magical rings took a long time to make... and they are coveted by those who have them. I want a system that expects you to give out maybe 3 combat enhancement items, and maybe 7 trinkets that do minor things that maybe could be put to use for greater things. You have magical armor against frost, a +1 sword, and bracer's of ogre strength +str. Then they have an orb of Elune's light (No more torches needed), a cloak that will keep you warm even directly at the south pole, a device that lets you see what was previously in this room in time, a rope that never breaks. That's the example of stuff I want. 3.X seemed to me to require you to hand out oodles of magic items to compete with monsters -.-.

3. Resurrection! Where's the sense of danger if you can't "die." When you're dead, you're dead. There are exceptions... but those would mean you're undead. Healing should take time. I'm willing to hand wave realistic healing though... Do you really want to spend a month waiting for your party to completely heal? Diseases and the like should be more than enough to show you're still not up to par and the like. Lately I've been deciding if having a "Limb Based" random target. This is so you could potentially lose an arm. But I also thought, would you want to play your character if he lost a leg, or an arm? I've pretty much nixed this idea.

4. A good mix of RP and Combat. I want a solid and good tactical combat system. It needs to remind me of playing Warhammer 40k, only on a smaller scale. Right now I like DnD 4.0's combat. Lots of sliding, manipulation, and on both sides. DM's and Players. The RP "system" needs to be lose. RP doesn't need rules, but it does need some stuff to help assist players who themselves lack traits their characters are supposed to have. Bob my player is not very charismatic, man he can't talk for crap, but he's supposed to convince the Shopkeeper to give him a discount, or he's supposed to get information etc. etc. He should be able to roll for this. I think 4.0 can make this workout as well, but no reason you couldn't do this with 3.X either. I saw a suggestion somewhere that said, if your players want to make a diplomacy check and the like and you want their "RP" to match their roll, you tell them to roll. Depending on how much they succeed or fail you tell them to role play the results.

5. A setting where every things happy go lucky. Where the only bad is outside the city walls. There should be just as much evil within a cities high court, as there is inside the vampire's keep. There should be enough interest in the world for players to want to go deal with politics to killing that massive dragon that's lived for way to long. A setting shouldn't have any secrets, because a setting that relies on these secrets and is the focus of the campaign, will not be the same if you revisit it from another place.

6. Lack of customization. Players should be able to play what they want, but it should also be balanced so that the DM has an easy time creating combat encounters and social. This is a hard balance to find :-/

Quote from: Ishmayl4 -I want to say this loud and clear - I may have never mentioned this on this site before, but I know I've at least implied this sentiment to my group over the years.  I HATE magic items as written by most standard fantasy!  I despise the premise of these items just lying around in treasure chests, awaiting adventurers to pick them up and save the world.  I can't stand the fact that there are just as many long swords +1 hanging around on merchants' guards in Forgotten Realms as there are regular long swords in our world.  The thought of magical belts that bring its wearer the strength of giants, of six different magical rings all blessed by various elemental powers, of chain mail that causes its wearer to blend better with shadows, and of boots that allow its wearer to leap tall buildings in a single bound - all being worn on the same person - brings a shudder of anger to me.  And I see it everywhere.  Not only that, but at least two members of my group aren't happy unless they are loaded for bear, like a magical Mad Max, with dozens of magic trinkets.  Shadowfell is taking a much different approach to magicality in mundane items.  All magic items are going to be treasures worth keeping, ancient artifacts that have a story and a history, and not a single one of them will ever be sold by a vendor in a street.  All items will be in the style of Midnight's covenant items, that bond with its bearer and gain more power over time, but they will be unique entities, handed down through the ages.  Players will be grateful by 10th level to have one dagger that is magically enhanced... at least, that's my plan.  Anyhoo, I digress.  Booster items suck.

We must have different definitions of standard fantasy.  To me, standard Fantasy is Elric, Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Lovecraft, and Lord of the Rings.  In all of those, magic is rare and scary and strange and rarely found in item form and when it is found in item form, it's a one-of-a-kind item.  
I've read some David Eddings and liked it, but won't add him to the canon.  I love Terry Pratchett, but Discowrld, though a bit of inspiration for parts of tera, is also non-canonical.  Anything with a still-living originl creator is too recent for Canon.
Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks, I've tried to read and never really gotten into.

Quote from: Crippled Crowglad to see the thread revived after its short hiatus.
I don't mind the pointy-eared-ness by itself, when it is used to make a race seem more bestial, but when the only defining characteristic is pointy ears, i can't help but agree. As far as dungeons go, i like "dungeon adventures" but they hardly ever make sense. Who the hell would pay for something like that?

I like dungeons.  I like dungeon-crawl style adventures.  I will admit logic is sometimes thin, but in a few cases I can make it make sense.  
For insance: a country where liches and necromancers usually have a right to continued existence until they have crossed lines the head of state can't ignore and declares them renegade.  Wizards whether alive or undead and whether or not they have inclinations towards darker arts are the aristocrats of this country.  Naturally, there are certain foritifications in the hands of evil necromancers or liches who keep lesser undead and other unsavory things around.  Also naturally, eventually it occasionally becomes necessary to deal with the nasty critters in their home environment.
Or it might have started out as a normal castle/ fortification thingy, but in a bygone era, one of the most powerful wizards ever worked some amazing magic on it that causes it to shift through various worlds, only landing on our world for about a month or so once every century or so.  In its cycle through various worlds, it picks up hitchhikers.  Some of them aren't fun to ahve around and must be dealt with.


My peave:
Every time Hades is assigned an alignment in a D&D sourcebook (1e or 3e Deities & Demigods 2e Legends & Lore) it's an Evil alignment.  I mean Hades as a deific being as much as or more than the Grey Wastes of Hades as an outer plane.  I don't think this fits the flavor of the established mythology.  Hades rules the underworld, but the underworld is not like the Christian Hell, everybody goes there, Good or Evil, king, warrior, philosopher, or slave.

He meant modern standard fantasy.

And Hades, as a plane of existence, should have been named Tartarus. Which reminds me:

I hate planes of existence which are treated like magical places on the world. That is, I hate it when traveling to another plane is like taking a vacation. Heck, I just generally dislike planes.

EDIT: Aha. I misread that. Whoops.

Quote from: RaelifinHe meant modern standard fantasy.

And Hades, as a plane of existence, should have been named Tartarus. Which reminds me:

I hate planes of existence which are treated like magical places on the world. That is, I hate it when traveling to another plane is like taking a vacation. Heck, I just generally dislike planes.

I believe that I have read in certain author interviews and other places certain modern fantasy authors base at least part of their work on D&D games they've been in.  This seems to create a rather vicious cycle:  D&D gets based on certain bad fantasy novels.  Fantasy novels get based on bad D&D.  Each feeds into the other and makes the fantasy genre a little worse with each passing year.


I probably should have made it clearer in the original post.  I mean Hades as a deific being as much as the Grey Wastes of Hades as an outer plane.

I agree on the "Hades shouldn't be evil" thing.  As far as I've read about him in myth he's dower and gloomy, not evil.  (Yes, he kidnaps Persephone, but that's merely par for the god course.)

Peeve #41 from the misanthropic desk of the Thread Murderer.
This strange idea that ancient, immortal beings of incalculable power can be pigeon holed into an alignment system at all.

Every ninth thread or so, we bunch our collective panties about whether the alignment system works for regular folks.  We weigh the merits of whether NPCs or PCs or classes should be constrained by alignment at all.
Yet some people want to to try to assign a 2 letter value to the motivational script of a potentially unknowable greater creature rife with creative juices borne form the time of creation,and driven by events and passions fired by a hundred or more human generations??

Right.
 x.
(More coffee)  

Quote from: Ishmayl4 -I want to say this loud and clear - I may have never mentioned this on this site before, but I know I've at least implied this sentiment to my group over the years. I HATE magic items as written by most standard fantasy! I despise the premise of these items just lying around in treasure chests, awaiting adventurers to pick them up and save the world. I can't stand the fact that there are just as many long swords +1 hanging around on merchants' guards in Forgotten Realms as there are regular long swords in our world. The thought of magical belts that bring its wearer the strength of giants, of six different magical rings all blessed by various elemental powers, of chain mail that causes its wearer to blend better with shadows, and of boots that allow its wearer to leap tall buildings in a single bound - all being worn on the same person - brings a shudder of anger to me. And I see it everywhere. Not only that, but at least two members of my group aren't happy unless they are loaded for bear, like a magical Mad Max, with dozens of magic trinkets.

not[/i] automagically make it cool. A +1 Longsword that I just found after a month-long quest through the boglands is going to deal +1 damage and hit 5% more of the time. This isn't actually that exciting, and may or may not have been worth the trip through the boglands.

2: The math doesn't always work. 3rd edition relies on the players to have access to magic items to balance the numbers--at a certain level, it kind of expects players to have +x bonus to their important stat, saving throws, ac, and attack bonus. This is kind of a lame thing with third edition because many of those items are boring (amulets of natural armor aren't exciting). If players don't have this stuff, it can throw the math off, which can have different effects on different players.

3: It takes player customization out of the players hands and puts it into the DMs hands. Say I make a fencer player. I take my fencing feats, I go into the fencing class. Say the DM lets us find a magical greatsword, and its history fits really well into his campaign setting and makes a lot of sense with the story and it's one of the only magical items in the land. That's great, but my character wields a rapier. Greatswords, not so good at that. Doesn't really fit the character. Maybe it's good for a museum donation?

4: Rare magic items tends not to be fair--if the awesome Skullcleaver greatsword is one of the only magical weapons in the land, deals +oh god! damage and etc, the greatsword-wielding barbarian just got a huge boost. The rapier-wielding rogue? Eh, not so much.

That was... kind of longwinded, but I felt the need to respond to the post--the urge for magical treasure isn't to be like Mad Max (though he IS awesome--he carries death in his back pocket!). The reasons I want easy access magical items (magical stores) are instead: mantaining control of my character's customization (*I* decide what weapons he uses), keeping up with the other players (I don't want to be grossly outshone), and to be able to contribute in the combat minigame that takes up so much of a D&D session (I don't want to be useless).

QuoteWe must have different definitions of standard fantasy. To me, standard Fantasy is Elric, Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Lovecraft, and Lord of the Rings.

lot[/b] of fantasy. :)

This is a very interesting point, because if we understand the game to be interactive storytelling, than why in blazes would a fencer get a greatsword? What sort of story is that?

I think the issue isn't so much about rarity as good DMing in that instance.

Stats though, that's just a failure of d20, imo. I mean, the power level of a character should be dynamically composed by their combat skill, magical skill, items, racial prowess, political power, etc. If all abilities were treated like magic items (in that they were "purchasable") this problem would be fixed, as would LA and ECL.

Just for my own ego and pride, I would like to mention that brainface wasn't talking about a specific time when he was playing a fencer and I gave him a greatsword - I tend to be a bit nicer than that, just cuz if nothing else, I get tired of being bitched at. ;)

Quote from: RaelifinStats though, that's just a failure of d20, imo. I mean, the power level of a character should be dynamically composed by their combat skill, magical skill, items, racial prowess, political power, etc. If all abilities were treated like magic items (in that they were "purchasable") this problem would be fixed, as would LA and ECL.

You mean it's a failure of D&D, and core D&D at that.  There have been d20 games an supplements that bring buying power: Buy The Numbers, BESM d20, Mutants & Masterminds (only this last one really opens it all up).  Probably others that I've never focused on.

The advantage to having pre-bought stuff is that most of the work's been done for you.  And such games should be chosen for that reason.

Alright, D&D and many others. I hear Mutants and Masterminds is good.

I'm a little confused by "such games should be chosen for that reason." Care to elaborate?

In danger of completely derailing a thread...
(again).

Ishy, you reap what you sow.  I totally agree with you as a GM, and have very carefully scaled things to fit the frequency ditribution I want, in that I have created a ratio of the power of the item versus the commonality of it.  So when you have players that expect or aspire to conditions different than you, that is a GM issue.  Or it could be called another case of the 'campaign vs system' issue, when the players are expecting something due to the game system that is actually different in your campiagn setting.

On the other hand, I am looking at the rebuttal from the esteemed Brainface, and am just as critical there.
His first and second points are pure 'campaign vs system'.  
If +1 swords are really rare in a setting, and that almost all damage and % to hit gains are small, this could be worth it.  But in said setting, it would be worth correspondingly more. And as for the math on the second point, this is purely coming from the above 'campaign vs. system', in that the math is purely about a system first and not a setting. Game balance is, as Raelifin inferred while responding to a different bit, a question of GMing.  It sounds like purely different expectations, to put it another way.

Issue 3 is more interesting, because this is more about the style of the game.  George, a mysteriarch in my Igbar group, uses a set of hobtaskulis (long triple claws).  They are a rare weapon.  So while other members of the group have found some minorly enhanced weapons, he has had to have a set of meteoric Iron/Omnian Steel Hobtaskulis made, since the setting does not have many magic ones.
Yes, I am the first one to advocate for a game being a shared storytelling, with the GM providing the context and the setting, and the plaeyrs providing the protagonists.  But in an established setting, players should know what they are getting into when they create a fencer, or some other custom character.  If the well-established setting was set up so that there were few magic items and most of them were greatswords and butterknifes, making a character that is a master of the goedendag could be construed as 'making your own bed'.  
Now, to be fair, I will be the first one to admit to shifting the weight of special items to try to balance things after a while, becasue I want all the players to have their days in the sun.  I'dd be lying if I did not admit that.

Now, to get onto a real 'RPG dislike', and trying to get back to the thread a little bit...
Magic Item 'stores', the idea that magic is so plebian and unspecial as to be sold in shoppes is antipathetical to my idea of a good game: the concepts are at odds.  Obviously, many setting and games work this way, but most of us manage to move past it.  

And my take on this
[blockquote=His Ish]I HATE magic items as written by most standard fantasy! [/blockquote]
Is that he meant written by most standard fantasy games.  Since the next few comments deal with settings and games only, I think Ishy was saying that the treatment magic items get in most games makes them too normal and common.
Ish, am I onto you, or am I just on something?

Quote from: RaelifinI'm a little confused by "such games should be chosen for that reason." Care to elaborate?

D&D, or any other system that pre-makes a character's selectable choices for mechanical interaction with the game, is best used when one wants to have most of the work figuring out how an ability will function and/or what ability they will have derived from a source already done for them.  This takes one or more steps out of the character creation process and allows you to get to the game quicker at the expense of customization.

Example: In D&D if you want to be a dwarven bard you just pick the options marked "dwarf" and "bard" and you only have a few more tiny mechanical decisions to make before your character is done.  In contrast M&M would need you to figure out what abilities being a dwarf and then a bard grant you and then build them yourself.  Just to provide an even more simple example, in Castles & Crusades (I think) you're done after having picked "dwarf" and "bard", only one extra bit.

I love the games that let you craft your own style. Granted cookie cutter classes/races is fine for quick games (which is why I own the 3.5 core). But the ability to shape your character beyond standard roleplay is why I am making UR classless/skill-based.

Pre-built packages are fun, but so is customization. A good system is fast and simple, but it built upon a flexible and deep framework which is hopefully visible for those who want more ability to customize their characters. The fact that D&D doesn't provide any justification for their class, feat, spell, monster, magic item, and race balancing means that it is ultimately harder for these elements to be added without upsetting the balance. Additionally, it is nearly impossible to determine the gold-piece-equivalent of an extra feat, or extra level, and thus reduces the ways in which the party can be diverse.

I like pre-built, fast rules. I also like dynamic and flexible rules. They are compatible.

Quote from: RaelifinI like pre-built, fast rules. I also like dynamic and flexible rules. They are compatible.

Without sacrificing character concept options?  I've never found one.

I think one way of addressing a lot of the issues about magic - items especially in a setting can be addressed by stepping back and looking at the implications more full then moving forward in reflecting those implications in fully and sensibly in that greater context. If we look at the magic item lists in most game systems, whether D&D, GURPS, Shadowrun from the perspective of what would people in general develop in a world where magic is researched and applied as a practical (hence, marketable) form of technology, making magic itself (as a form of power/energy quantifiable in terms of force/work done) and the skill in its use an identifiable marketplace commodity- i.e., offers affordable (or at least comparatively cost effective) and innovative solutions to common problems and needs, it quickly becomes apparent that the lists are woefully and glaringly incomplete when it comes to actually illustrating those uses. In most settings where magic is ubiquitous enough to fulfill the above requirements (which is an inherent implication of its description in most systems) the vast majority of spells and items actually present in the world portrayed would be developed and produced for the purpose of meeting the needs and desires of an equivalently high proportion of the setting's population, that is the faceless, nameless, character-classless masses of NPCs who are (properly) glossed over at the table as they have no direct impact upon the story in play and with whom characters have absolutely no, even incidental, interaction. (Even the faceless crowd in the market square with which PCs have a peripheral interaction as a whole, whether trying to address and influence a public mob or trying to simple hide among or avoid as mobile obstacles in the shifting urban terrain constitute only a small fraction of 1% of the city's total population.) The thing is, the spell and item lists only include things which PCs would be interested in - the vast majority of spells and items which should inherently exist are simply irrelevant to 99% or more of the characters which players will create. When was the last time a player/character asked about the availability (in the absence of electricity) of some form of magically powered toaster or ceiling fan? One of the most obvious fields of applied magic which PCs would likely want to be aware of, even if not choosing to learn themselves, is rarely addressed even though the basics for it are virtually always specifically provided - that of forensic magic. (Shadowrun being a clear exception here as this matters *a lot* in actual play; I've only found a broad sampling of good, direct examples in the old - 1st/2nd ed. AD&D compatible, public domain compilation circulated electronically as The Great Net Spellbook.)

This is something LV has taken pains to address in creating the system mechanics underpinning Celtricia and can probably offer numerous practical examples. Ultimately this can be addressed within a setting using a published mechanical rule set with some expansion of its magical system. If you step back a moment and look at magic in your setting in the commercial terms I've outlined above, the general scaling of the commonality/rarity of spells, casters, items and their makers can rather easily be accomplished as a function of cost/benefit, which ratio can automatically reflect/create a consistent inverse proportion of commonality to power at whatever progression of ratio is desired. If need be, duration or "permanence" can further be used in adjusting this, i.e. the "permanent" duration of an Arcane Lock spell cast upon a door doesn't necessarily mean that someone approaching the same door a thousand, a hundred, or even 1 year later will still find it magically secured. Hence magical motive power to drive a small fan in a room for a year might be affordable to the average city tradesman of relative financial security (though not necessarily of high enough priority to choose to spend the money on rather than, say some other desired furnishing or well made household tools) while the magical motive power to propel a naval vessel for even a portion of its expected structural life could still be beyond the means of most governments to invest in their flagship - much less a fleet of such magic driven warships.

Other reasonable considerations can also directly affect the prevalence of items. In most historic "medieval" societies a serf or even peasant could face sever penalties if discovered to be in possession of a sword or other purely martial weapon. Where hunting was the sole privilege of the ruling manorial lord, possession of spears, bows and similar hunting weapons might be as much or even more severely penalized; since poaching was typically a capitol crime, possession of the tools could be considered proof of the crime, or at the very least the intent to do so and amounting to the same thing. . .  How much more so than would the right to possess a magically enhanced weapon be restricted? Even if +1 weapons could be produced in sufficient quantity and cheaply enough to render them "common" the market for them is still only driven by demand and in this case likely a very small segment of the arms market as a whole. If a ten year magical hotplate costs the same as a +1 dagger there's still going to be a whole lot more of the former present and available in the world regardless of which the game's player's are more interested in. . .

One idea I thought of long ago was to move the location of special abilities from the item to the character.  Instead of giving out insanely vast amounts of money give them "power points" in the same ratio and either let the players choose what magic enhancements their characters get or the DM can assign them if he/she wants more control.

In some cases, such as the cloak of arachnidia, this might not make much sense but it's really intended for the simple stat boosters like +1 weapons and cloaks of resistence.

Magically enhanced by being subjected to "magical radiation" over a long time while adventuring. :-p
This is shaping up to be my most popular thread. Not sure whether i should be happy or disappointed seeing that this beats my game material threads by several pages ^^
anyway, another dislike:
How *some* roleplaying games make "new" monsters by adding an elemental aspect to them. Why the hell is there a scorpion with lightning claws in MM 4e?? (mind you, that was just an example)

'New monster, just add wings' approach...

Monsters should be monstrous, frightening, rare, wonderful, terrifying. Not something to be battled and defeated on a routine basis.

Just sayin'.

Snakefing, was that for or against my dislike, or something completely separate?

Mostly parallel, I guess. If you need to start creating monsters by adding incongruous elements like lightning claws (huh?), you've already gone too far in making "normal" monsters too routine. There should be no such thing as a "normal" monster.

But my complaint goes beyond just making new monsters in strange and kludgy ways. Even your monsters should either be promoted to full-fledged members of the ecosystem (in which case, they are more like the flora and fauna of your fantasy world, not monsters per se); or you should use them sparingly so as to preserve their status as true "monsters" or "aberrations" - objects of wonder and dread.

I agree strongly with this. If you want your monsters everywhere it makes more sense if they are a part of the local flora/fauna then just random aberrations everywhere.

Another thing I have an issue with is when gods are always a provable fact. Look at real life, can you prove that any of the religions (or those without religion) are right? Now granted this isn't real life but it does have a basis in it. I think it is nice from time to time to have a society where there are many different types of worshipers and no measurable way to find out which of them is right.

I totally agree with you on the provable gods thing, Nomadic, something i also think i made clear in the very first post.

A corollary to the "monsters are everywhere" dislike: I hate it when humanoid creatures "aren't people". "Kobolds and Goblins are vermin and multiply out of control so we have to kill them" is a meme that frankly just weirds me out. I don't want to feel like I need to wash my hands after playing D&D.

Now, if they're kobold bandits, then everything's fine. :)

[blockquote=Brainface]A corollary to the "monsters are everywhere" dislike: I hate it when humanoid creatures "aren't people". "Kobolds and Goblins are vermin and multiply out of control so we have to kill them" is a meme that frankly just weirds me out. I don't want to feel like I need to wash my hands after playing D&D.[/blockquote]
Oh, gods, totally agree.

I put that under my "I hate it when creatures are made Evil".

And how.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI put that under my "I hate it when creatures are made Evil".

Now that you say it, I can totally see how Tolkien was wrong. Making orcs and uruk-hai evil just for the sake of having a justification to have them slaughtered by the dozen by the heroes. I say, down with this stereotypical oppression of misunderstood races! :protest:

LotR would have been so much better if Lurtz would have been given an opportunity to express his feelings, and to talk about his bad childhood with his abusive stepfather. Instead, he was forced into the "villain" corner and soon thereafter killed by Aragorn. :P

;)

Can we, uh, not use elaborate strawman arguments in this thread, please? :yumm:

The thing about inherently evil creatures is that they're so hard to hate.  I mean, they're obviously no picnic, but when you are by your very nature designed for the murder and destruction of human beings it's neither shocking nor surprising to see you act like a monster.  It's why devils and demons in old D&D never really seemed that nasty to me.

Now take a sentient creature with no significant predisposition toward good or evil, and, offer them the choice.  If they choose villainy, when they had every opportunity to walk a higher path, that is evil.  Atrocities committed by a being with no capacity to choose otherwise are little more than horrid acts of nature.  The same acts committed by a free mind are abhorrent.

EDIT: Of course, sometimes there is something truly chilling about a clinical, remorseless monster.  The cenobites from Hellbound Heart scare me more than just about any other character in fiction (except maybe Meryl Streep's characters in Rendition and Manchurian Candidate), expressly because they are designed for torture, pure, exquisite and unending, and they're supposed to take pleasure in their work.  Gives me fucking nightmares...

I think Tolkien orcs are a slightly different story, since they were actually created as corrupted elves, by whatever lord of darkness created them (melkor or sauron, I forget).  I mean, they were essentially made to be evil, so I think it's fully justifiable to have an evil race in that particular situation.

And honestly, LotR was not meant to be a horror story, nor was it meant to be about the mooks. I mean, the easterlings and southrons both worked for Sauron, and they're human. The generic-ness of the background villains (I'm not going into the racism thing) to me is a product of the style of the writing and story.

Flat morality is often present in tales of heroism. And when we do explore the subject, it's about Saruman and Boromir and the lust for power.

It is one of the weaker aspects of his world, though.  :-|

Quote from: Ra-TielNow that you say it, I can totally see how Tolkien was wrong. Making orcs and uruk-hai evil just for the sake of having a justification to have them slaughtered by the dozen by the heroes. I say, down with this stereotypical oppression of misunderstood races! :protest:

LotR would have been so much better if Lurtz would have been given an opportunity to express his feelings, and to talk about his bad childhood with his abusive stepfather. Instead, he was forced into the "villain" corner and soon thereafter killed by Aragorn. :P

I don't understand your protest.  The objection I have is not for the existence of villains, but for the assigning of that role to an entire species and/or culture rather than to individuals individually.

I think he was joking about Lurtz...  x.

QuoteFlat morality is often present in tales of heroism.

supposed[/i] to kick their ass.  The easterlings and southrons were basically uruk hai with better complexions, and where's the fun in that? (Seriously fellas, allying with a giant frickin' eye hell-bent on the utter submission of the world of men?  It's like deciding to make out with a facehugger)  Gimme a battle between two men both with legitimate agendas; that way, if I pick a side it's because there was more than one side to choose from.

Whatever LotR was about, I don't really think it had much to say.

On the subject of one-dimensional bad-guys, how about the Matrix?  The lobby scene in the first movie has got to be one of the most gratuitous scenes of violence by a bunch of so-called "heroes" ever in the history of cinema.  I'd wager the security guards had no idea they were keeping house for the bad guys; they probably thought they were working for actual agents (you know, like the FBI).  So along come Keanu and Carrie, packing serious heat, and in a few minutes they slaughter dozens of hardworking, well-meaning family men.  Now that's heroism.

And that's my favourite scene in the movie...

But I liked The Matrix :(

Uh, and LotR

So did I, Phoenix.  So did I.

Quote from: PhoenixBut I liked The Matrix :(

Uh, and LotR

Oh.  I also.  Especially LotR.  But I'll be the first one to say, 'Nice place to read about but I wouldn't want to run a game there.'  
Having real heinous evil is great and motivating, but having whole races given over to it, less so. And it makes real evil less impressive and scary if the players run into it every time they turn around.

Quote from: IshmaylI think Tolkien orcs are a slightly different story, since they were actually created as corrupted elves, by whatever lord of darkness created them (melkor or sauron, I forget).  I mean, they were essentially made to be evil, so I think it's fully justifiable to have an evil race in that particular situation.

And what's the particular difference between Uruk-Hai with Sauron and Drow with Lolth? Why is it easy to accept inherent racial malignity in one case, but not in another which has basically the same foundations?

Quote from: Salacious Angel[...] So along come Keanu and Carrie, packing serious heat, and in a few minutes they slaughter dozens of hardworking, well-meaning family men.  Now that's heroism. [...]

I think it's rather the serious issue with morality that "the Matrix" displays here. It's ok to slaughter innocent bystanders, because they could transform into agents at any moment.

Quote from: Ra-TielI think it's rather the serious issue with morality that "the Matrix" displays here. It's ok to slaughter innocent bystanders, because they could transform into agents at any moment.

Did you just say it was okay or not okay?

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawDid you just say it was okay or not okay?

Would I have labeled that as "serious issue with morality" if I supported it? ;)

Quote from: Ra-TielWould I have labeled that as "serious issue with morality" if I supported it? ;)

*shrug* Can't detect voice tone online.

And I agree that if you accept one "entirely evil race" you have to accept them all.

Has anybody posted this yet? (http://www.slate.com/id/2186203)

QuoteOrc Holocaust
The reprehensible moral universe of Gary Gygax's Dungeons & Dragons.
By Erik Sofge
Posted Monday, March 10, 2008, at 6:35 PM ET

When Gary Gygax died, the gaming community lost an icon, its founding genius. At least that's the story being told in countless obituaries this past week by writers as eager to praise Gygax as they are to out themselves'"with faux embarrassment'"as former nerds whose lives he changed with 20-sided dice. And lo, what a fascinating and tortured bunch we are, with our tales of marathon role-playing game (RPG) sessions in windowless basements, our fingers hardened to nacho-cheese-encrusted talons, and our monklike vows of celibacy. Part testament to Gygax, part cathartic confessional, these obituaries are rapidly cementing his position at the head of the geek pantheon.

But it has to be said: Gary Gygax wasn't a visionary to all of us. The real geeks out there'"my homies'"know the awkward truth: When you cut through the nostalgia, Dungeons & Dragons isn't a good role-playing game; in fact, it's one of the worst on the market. Sadly, Gygax's creation defines our strange corner of the entertainment world and drowns out all the more innovative and sophisticated games that have made D&D obsolete for decades. (As a game designer, Gygax is far outclassed by contemporaries such as Steve Jackson and Greg Stafford.) It's the reason that tabletop gaming is not only stuck in the pop culture gutter but considered pathetic even by the standards of mouth-breathing Star Trek conventioneers. And with the entire industry continuing to collapse in the face of online gaming, this might be the last chance to see Gygax for what he was'"an unrepentant hack, more Michael Bay than Ingmar Bergman.

What's wrong with Dungeons & Dragons? It plays like a video game. A good role-playing game provides the framework for a unique kind of narrative, a collaborative thought experiment crossed with improvisational theater. But D&D, particularly the first edition that Gygax co-wrote in 1975, makes this sort of creative play an afterthought. The problem is most apparent in one of Gygax's central (and celebrated) innovations: "experience points." To become a more powerful wizard, a sneakier thief, or an elfier elf (being an elf was its own profession in early editions, which is kind of like saying being Chinese is a full-time job), you need to gain "levels," which requires experience points. And the best way to get experience points is to kill stuff. Every monster, from an ankle-biting goblin to a massive fire-spewing dragon, has a specific number of points associated with it'"your reward for hacking it to pieces. So while it's one player's job'"the so-called Dungeon Master'"to come up with the plot for each gaming session and play the parts of the various enemies and supporting characters, in practice that putative storyteller merely referees one imagined slaughter after another. This is not Tolkien's Middle-Earth, with its anti-fascist political commentary and yearning for an end to glory and the triumph of peace. This is violence without pretense, an endless hobgoblin holocaust.

Here's the narrative arithmetic that Gygax came up with: You come across a family of sleeping orcs, huddled around their overflowing chest of gold coins and magical weapons. Why do orcs and other monsters horde gold when they can't buy anything from the local "shoppes," or share a jug of mead in the tavern, or do anything but gnash their teeth in the darkness and wait for someone to show up and fight them? Who knows, but there they are, and you now have a choice. You can let sleeping orcs lie and get on with the task at hand'"saving a damsel, recovering some ancient scepter, whatever. Or you can start slitting throats'"after all, mercy doesn't have an experience point value in D&D. It's the kind of atrocity that commits itself.

For decades, gamers have argued that since D&D came first, its lame, morally repulsive experience system can be forgiven. But the damage is still being done: New generations of players are introduced to RPGs as little more than a collective fantasy of massacre and greed. If the multiplayer online game World of Warcraft is the direct descendant of D&D, then what, exactly, has Gygax bequeathed to us unwashed, nerdy masses? The notion that emotionally complex story lines are window dressing for an endless series of hack-and-slash encounters? There's a reason so many players are turned off after a brush with D&D. It promises something great'"a lively (if dorky) bit of performance art'"but delivers a small-minded and ignorant fantasy of rage, distilled to a bunch of arcane charts and die rolls. Dungeons & Dragons strips the "role-playing" out of RPGs; it's a videogame without the graphics, and a pretty boring one, at that.

There is a way to wring real creativity, and possibly even artistic merit, from this bizarre medium'"and it has nothing to do with Gygax and his tradition of sociopathic storytelling. In the mid-1980s, right around the time that Gygax was selling off his company, Steve Jackson began publishing the Generic Universal Roleplaying System, or GURPS. Jackson's goal was to provide the rules to play games in any genre. More importantly, characters in this new system could be fleshed out down to the smallest detail, from a crippling phobia of snakes to a severe food allergy. And when it came to experience points, characters got whatever the "gamemaster" decided. They might earn points for succeeding at a given task or simply for playing their character in a compelling way. Of course, players could still take out their real-life bitterness in a fictional killing spree, and the game master might end up with a bumbling and incoherent story line. But GURPS created the potential for so much more.

There are other complex, challenging games out there, and GURPS is still in print. But the bloodthirsty Dungeons & Dragons franchise remains a bestseller. If it seems overly harsh to fault Gygax for his seminal work, keep in mind that in 1987 he helped create the gaming equivalent of Plan 9 From Outer Space. In the now-infamous Cyborg Commando, you play a man-bot battling an invasion of alien insects. Unfortunately, you seem to have been built for comedic effect, with lasers that shoot out of your knuckles and your brain inexplicably transferred to your torso. That frees up cranial space so you can suck liquids through your nose for further analysis. Not that there are any rules for said chemical analysis, or for much of anything, really. Gygax wasn't much for the details. In the end, his games are a lot like his legacy: goofy, malformed, and fodder for a self-deprecating joke or two'"before being shoved in the closet for good.

Too soon?

Possibly yes too soon. Unfortunately I have to admit there is much truth to it.

Well, to be fair, wasn't D&D conceived as a roleplaying addon to Chainmail, which was, after all, a wargame? And you can't very well fault a wargame for being about mass slaughter. :)

Quote from: Polycarp!Has anybody posted this yet? (http://www.slate.com/id/2186203)

QuoteOrc Holocaust[...]

Are other RPGs really that much better?

Let's take a look at the old WoD. Werewolves would slaughter any vampire they meet, because vampires have the scent of the Wyrm on them. Similarily, werewolves would kill pretty much any mage setting foot into a caern to draw Quintessence, as this kills the caern. Vampires would not refrain from dominating or killing any mortal or mage getting into their way and disturbing their schemes.

Or Shadowrun. Ghouls and vampires, merrows, nagas, wendigos - all are feeling and intelligent beings. Yet they are hunted and basically killed on sight, because they are dangerous, ruthlessly brutal, or are carrying infectious diseases. Spirits and ghosts are usually treated as slaves and tools to be used, and not as intelligent beings that should be treated with respect.

Other games have their own private holocausts just as well. Ironically, I don't hear anyone complain about them.

Quote from: Ra-TielAnd what's the particular difference between Uruk-Hai with Sauron and Drow with Lolth? Why is it easy to accept inherent racial malignity in one case, but not in another which has basically the same foundations?

every reason in the world[/b] for them to be an evil race.

Quote from: Ra-TielOther games have their own private holocausts just as well. Ironically, I don't hear anyone complain about them.

I dislike[/i] about rpgs: I'm not trying to say what you should dislike. :)

Quote from: IshmaylI first of all never personally said there was a difference between drow and orcs (in fact, I hadn't realized drow had come into the conversation until you just mentioned them), and second of all, only used orcs as an example, not the Prime Ethos.  

Well, I wasn't trying to imply anything but just quoted the most argued about inherently evil race I could think of right then.

Quote from: IshmaylI'm saying that some races were created without hope of redemption - take trollocs and Myrddraal from the Wheel of Time.  They are literally hard-wired to be evil minions of the dark lord of evility.  There are no renegade Myrddraal, deftly wielding two scimitars to combat all the evil of their species.  It's in their mythology.  Just like in the mythology of orcs in the Lord of the Rings.  

Aahhhh... WoT. Remember those times. ;)

But yes, those creatures are definitively inherently evil. But what about DnD orcs and Gruumsh? Doesn't it say that the orcs were created by Gruumsh?

Quote from: IshmaylHowever one runs orcs in their own campaign, though, needs to based on their own mythology, and if orcs are just another evolved, sentient race, then there's no sense for them to be an "evil race."  However, if they are a corrupted, created race, for the sole purpose of being evil (such as the Midnight campaign setting), then there's every reason in the world for them to be an evil race.

See above. If you go with the standard mythology and cosmology, orcs are a race created to serve their evil god as servants in the mortal world. Tough luck for them, I guess. :P

Quote from: Ra-TielAre other RPGs really that much better?

Other games have their own private holocausts just as well. Ironically, I don't hear anyone complain about them.[/quote]
I'm sure it's because D&D is popular in a way that no other roleplaying system is or has ever been; there's no irony there.  You can argue (as the author does) that WoW is a direct descendant of D&D, but nobody could argue it is a descendant of GURPS or any other non-D&D system.  D&D has had a lot of influence on everything that has succeeded it, and continues to do so.  It's entirely fair to study the morality of D&D and note what effects that has had on the roleplaying and gaming community and the fantasy genre itself.

But the reason I posted this was because of people talking about the morality of roleplaying - other games have their "private holocausts," but should they?  Is a world where there are inherently evil, subhuman races "morally reprehensible?"  I don't go to the rhetorical lengths the author does, but the treatment of "evil races" from Tolkein's Orcs and "Swarthy Men" to Gygax's menagerie has always bothered me on a basic level.

The discussion about inherently evil humanoid fantasy races here reminds me of one of my houserules for the Tera cmapaign that I might not have mentioned yet.

Paladins's Detect Evil ability is usable at will, not always on.  Detect Evil (and Detect Good)is also somewhat restricted in what is Evil (or Good).  Sentient living humanoids native to the Prime Material never detect as Evil or Good, unless currently engaged in clearly Good or Evil activities.  Violence is Evil.  Kindness is Good.  An Orc giving alms at a temple of Gruumsh detects as Good.  A Paladin fighting a Demon detects as Evil.


This brings me to my second peave:
D&D is not set up to put a Necromancer, an Assassin, a Paladin, and a Druid into the same adventuring group, even if there are four players and they want to play a Necromancer, an Assassin, a Paladin, and a Druid.  The Assassin is Evil.  I'm the DM, I got no problem with Evil PCs, they're like Good PCs but without phony self-justification for the murder and loot gmae that is adventuring.  The Paladin is Good and can Detect Evil and refuses to adventure with Evil PCs.

Okay, the paladin would probably discover it at some point, but aren't there items that shield you from alignment detection? Or lets you appear as something else? And paladins, druids and necromancers could easily party together. The only real problem is combining assassins and paladins as i see it. But then again, this still seems more like an objection against alignments in general.
The major problem with alignment restrictions on classes, as i see it, is that by using classes you have already limited the choices of character somewhat, and by further limiting multi-classing the character ends up with even less options.

I personally have never seen any real reason to even have alignments. The only reason they exist is for the good vs evil style game with defining lines for each side.

These sorts of problems are why I think games should leave the assigning of Good/Evil (or lack of either) to the DM and not the rules.

I've been busy today, and lost track of this site and this thread.
Wow.
Lots of thinking and icon-challenging going on.  I always appreciate that.

Polycarp, I don't think it was too soon to post that, and I believe it has a lot of truth to it.  And many threads (Combat vs Everything and others come to mind) have also been created on this site out of the ideal that combat is not everything, which is one of the underlying themes not mentioned in that post specifically, but that is really at the heart of it.  The author trashes the concept of experience points, but what was really being taken to task was the game's reliance on a system that only allows growth through killing.  I personally don't damn Gygaz for that. When he wrote his and Dave Arneson's game, as was previously mentioned, it was as a Tactical Wargame supplement.  It was fun and it led to better things and better games.  I had a hell of a time playing D&D, until the needs of my game changed.  

I agree with Polycarp again that D&D itself is the most visible target because it is the biggest and oldest, and has wielded the most influence.  I'm not going to worry about the influence of Tunnells and Trolls, But when looking at the whole of the RPG universe, more of us have played D&D than any other system by far.  It has touched far many more of us than any other system, influenced many more of us as well.  It has more influence, for better or for worse.  So I feel 'spreading the blame' as an attempt to defend D&D is invalid.
And it is not that other games have or have not been better at focusing on more than combat, though many have tried to reward other skills and actions and thus have been better to the author.  I think what is at the crux of this is that despite more evolutions and versions than other games, despite the largest audience and largest influence, the latest version of D&D is still a combat heavy game mainly created for combat resolution.

And to move briefly to the 'evil race' issue, this is one of thing things that changed for me as I got older.  The Orcash of my world were created as one of the Oggrillite races created by Anthraxus in his rebellion of against the other PLanars, and they were trained to be savage and the culture that was originally created for them was very harsh and formed harsh specimens.  They were created to be that group of 'Evil' races.  
But I very consiously decided that there would be an underlying theme of 'Free Will over Racial characteristics' in Celtricia, and it is part of the racial issues that the Orcash and Gartier and Ograk are often good and noble in my world, though some are evil, just as some people are.  There is still prejudice on both sides, but just because I enjoyed Tolkien to the point of tears and played countless hours of 'orcs are evil'-type D&D when I was younger does not mean that I can't move past it personally when I created my setting.

I don't blame Gygax; the man made a fun game, and for the times, it was great.  So I don't condone bashing the man.  But I also think that the points in that post are very valid.  So I won't trash him for creating something ground-breaking in his time, but I look at the present and especially the future with a less forgiving eye.  I like giving my sages experience in Basic Scholar or historical knowledge when that figure stuff out; combat does not have to be everything.

Quote from: NomadicI personally have never seen any real reason to even have alignments. The only reason they exist is for the good vs evil style game with defining lines for each side.

They also exist for mechanical purposes, so the Paladin can get anti-evil abilities and demons can smite righteous heroes.  Unfortunately the system causes more problems than it solves.

I can't scan the drow and orcs peeves without commenting! And, yeah, they tend to be presented as flat. Most "evil" cultures - designated so in terms of cultural values and perception of how the world works - tend to fall flat unless there is a good, comprehensible reason for the people in that culture to have come to embrace that set of values and hold that perception of what life really all boils down to. If so, then the society which the culture develops can reasonably reflect those values and beliefs in terms of how they go about their practical day to day activities and interactions with other cultures and the societies developed from them. I busted my brain hard in working out how that could actually arise from the non-evil elves and orcs in Panisadore - and I at least believe that I succeeded in doing so. The Druewenh and Pahrorkh essentially came to constitute each other's self-fulfilling prophecies - The Druewenh as leaders of the Fehladurh really were trying to enslave the 'orkh race - and the Pahr' faction saw this as the elves revealing their "true colors" - they saw the world as one in which deceit and power were used to control others for personal benefit to the others detriment - and considered this to be the factual norm to which they had been naively blind until the world got colder and darker and push came to shove and they saw what elves are really like. They then reacted in kind, thus proving the assertions of the Druewenh by which they had sought to justify their actions. This means that an "evil" culture inherently believes that the rest of the world's cultures are really the same way, they're just not honest about it with themselves or others until the chips are down and they are forced to reveal their true selves - and then the "evil" society developed from this cultural perspective acts in a manner reasonably (logically) consistent with that belief. Both Druewenh and Pahrorkh are therefore in agreement with each other that they both in fact represent the true members of their respective races - the Fehladurh and Khurorkh merely being the sham faces of their respective races - the Pahrorkh justify hatred of the Fehladurh on the grounds that they are really just Druewenh in disguise and the Druewenh perceive the Khurorkh in the same manner relative to the Pahrorkh. N.B. - all the preceding is with regard to cultures and societies - and says little regarding the individuals of which they're made. Rarely will individuals label their own cultural beliefs (as outlined above) as "evil" - they're just being realistic about the world. Individuals will simply make choices and take actions in their encounters/interactions with others that make sense to them in the context of those beliefs. Witness the "strange fruit" hanging from the trees of the deep south during the last century and decide whether southern culture and society is "evil." So, yes, the drow and the (grey) orcs in Panisadore are evil races pretty much as described (on the surface of things at any rate) in the MM, but I like to think that I have worked out a way in which they could exist as such without the rational absurdities needed to portray the collectives of hundreds of thousands of people who are all (as distinct individuals) consciously dedicated to promoting and explicitly pursuing the objectives that are defined by openly declared moral "values and principals of evil."

and as always, Have Fun, Play Well.

Quote from: Polycarp!

Quote from: NomadicI personally have never seen any real reason to even have alignments. The only reason they exist is for the good vs evil style game with defining lines for each side.

They also exist for mechanical purposes, so the Paladin can get anti-evil abilities and demons can smite righteous heroes.  Unfortunately the system causes more problems than it solves.

That is part of what I meant by good vs evil style game. Each side gets special things they can use against the other. Anyhow, overall its a bit silly and it personally comes across to me as feeling about as dynamic (plotwise) as a cardboard cutout.

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: Polycarp!They also exist for mechanical purposes, so the Paladin can get anti-evil abilities and demons can smite righteous heroes.  Unfortunately the system causes more problems than it solves.

That is part of what I meant by good vs evil style game. Each side gets special things they can use against the other. Anyhow, overall its a bit silly and it personally comes across to me as feeling about as dynamic (plotwise) as a cardboard cutout.

Plus you can have the mechanics without tying them in to real-world moral terms.  Just rename Good and Evil.

I don't really mind alignment systems as long as they are flexible enough... They are only really bad when they get in the way of character concepts and gameplay. Actually, what I hate the most is alignment detection. Alignment should be a skeleton you can build a personality and morality up around, not a "physical" trait.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: Polycarp!They also exist for mechanical purposes, so the Paladin can get anti-evil abilities and demons can smite righteous heroes.  Unfortunately the system causes more problems than it solves.

That is part of what I meant by good vs evil style game. Each side gets special things they can use against the other. Anyhow, overall its a bit silly and it personally comes across to me as feeling about as dynamic (plotwise) as a cardboard cutout.

Plus you can have the mechanics without tying them in to real-world moral terms.  Just rename Good and Evil.

It goes back to the kind of game you want to play.  I think it's sometimes fun, especially in shorter term games, to place PCs in a black-and-white world, and worry a little less.
But simple alignment has a very difficult time keeping up with more complex, long-term games.  You just have to be wary of trying to remove it from a game that has been written with alignment powers as part of the balance.

Kvetch # 57.
What the hell is the average human lifespan in a world that exists with Cure Disease, etc?  Why can't game designers make the spells that would definitely, really exist if there was magic?
Anyone else got a 'potency' spell in their world?  Of course they would exist, I mean, Testosterone is so stupid and singleminded that we can't go 6 minutes without seeing an 'ED' commercial...or do I have the only Potency spell in the universe?  
(Not to mention the 'illusion/mentalist' variations)
And I cannot be the only one to have conception reducing spells for both genders...I mean, like the firstr thing that a civilization would come up with after the second oldest profession...

Quote from: LordVreegIt goes back to the kind of game you want to play.  I think it's sometimes fun, especially in shorter term games, to place PCs in a black-and-white world, and worry a little less.

This. I can't see a reason to boggle players with morale decisions on a Platonic level when they barely grasp the basic rules of the game. K.I.S.S. and all that. ;)

Quote from: LordVreegBut simple alignment has a very difficult time keeping up with more complex, long-term games.  You just have to be wary of trying to remove it from a game that has been written with alignment powers as part of the balance.

Depends. If alignment has mechanical issues like in 3E I fully agree with you. However, if you take an approach like 4E where alignment has pretty much no influence on mechanics (aside from one paragon path) it's much less of a problem.

Quote from: LordVreegKvetch # 57.
What the hell is the average human lifespan in a world that exists with Cure Disease, etc?  Why can't game designers make the spells that would definitely, really exist if there was magic?
Anyone else got a 'potency' spell in their world?  Of course they would exist, I mean, Testosterone is so stupid and singleminded that we can't go 6 minutes without seeing an 'ED' commercial...or do I have the only Potency spell in the universe?  
(Not to mention the 'illusion/mentalist' variations)
And I cannot be the only one to have conception reducing spells for both genders...I mean, like the firstr thing that a civilization would come up with after the second oldest profession...

This "problem" only happens when magic is a badly defined blackbox that is used as an all powerful solution to all problems. Read, exactly how magic works in DnD, especially 3E. If magic had its own strict rules by which it had to abide, there'd be no problem with this.

For example, one idea I had was making magic an "interface" to the superstring theory. A caster could basically only influence the physical and subatomic properties of an object or a creature, with a few dimension messing stuff thrown in. Shapechanging, telepathy, mind control, creatio ex nihilo were all out. You couldn't just make someone stronger - but had to affect the tools or items the guy was handling. You couldn't just make some fly, but manipulate the effect gravity and inertia have on him. And so on.

My goal was to remove the "use magic to add to a mundane skill" sillyness that was introduced into DnD magic by reducing magic to a strict science.

Vreeg, i think that in many cases such spells are somewhat presumed to exist, but aren't written down anywhere, because in games like d&d, and even in more serious games, PC wizards or what have you are simply very rarely going to even consider such spells. There is a lot of magic going on behind the scenes as well (in a med to high magic world)

Quote from: Crippled CrowVreeg, i think that in many cases such spells are somewhat presumed to exist, but aren't written down anywhere, because in games like d&d, and even in more serious games, PC wizards or what have you are simply very rarely going to even consider such spells. There is a lot of magic going on behind the scenes as well (in a med to high magic world)

Ah, you mean You presume they exist.
I guess I could see this.  And I suppose even in a low magic world.
I play a roleplaying game with Heavy social interaction.  I have had PCs marry, create families, get accused of fathering children twice, seduce NPC's, send poetry, and receive flowers.
(in between battling the Firehazer and Zyjmanese tribes...)
Maybe I am just guilty of assuming that I am less of an iconoclast in my GMing than I am.  But it obvious to me when others must presume something that I am way in the minority to need it in my game.
*sigh*


[blockquote=Ra-tiel][blockquote=LordVreeg]But simple alignment has a very difficult time keeping up with more complex, long-term games. You just have to be wary of trying to remove it from a game that has been written with alignment powers as part of the balance.[/blockquote]

Depends. If alignment has mechanical issues like in 3E I fully agree with you. However, if you take an approach like 4E where alignment has pretty much no influence on mechanics (aside from one paragon path) it's much less of a problem.[/blockquote]which sentence are you responding to with this?  I ask because your response has totally different meanings depending on which sentece you are responding to.  Help me.

Hehe, true, it all depends on the gaming group. Mine, for one, is much too immature to be able to look seriously upon such spells. And honestly, i think some people would be kinda annoyed if it took up space in their brand new rulebook. I can see your point that it would make a lot of sense for them to be there, but sadly, only the minority will miss them.

Quote from: LordVreeg[blockquote=Ra-tiel][blockquote=LordVreeg]But simple alignment has a very difficult time keeping up with more complex, long-term games. You just have to be wary of trying to remove it from a game that has been written with alignment powers as part of the balance.[/blockquote]

Depends. If alignment has mechanical issues like in 3E I fully agree with you. However, if you take an approach like 4E where alignment has pretty much no influence on mechanics (aside from one paragon path) it's much less of a problem.[/blockquote]which sentence are you responding to with this?  I ask because your response has totally different meanings depending on which sentece you are responding to.  Help me.

Apparently my cognitive functions are messed up pretty badly, because reading my answer now it makes absolutely no sense to me. :huh:

What I wanted to say is that, in agreement with your first sentence, simple "black & white" alignments tend to not mesh well with long running campaigns that sport difficult moral decisions. Then, going on to your second sentence (and that was to which my "depends" related), I tried to say that removing alignment has less effect on a 4E campaign than it has on a 3E campaign, primarily because 4E (almost) lacks any mechanical elements that are dependent on alignment.

I hope I cleared that mess of a reply a bit up. :D :P

I really don't mind the duality feud aspect, what I mind is having definitions of Good and Evil written down or in any way implied.

[blockquote LV]And I cannot be the only one to have conception reducing spells for both genders...I mean, like the firstr thing that a civilization would come up with after the second oldest profession...[/blockquote]

That and STDs is why I have always seen a link between any healer's church/order whatever and any prostitution (organized as guild or not) in any setting I've run. Where you find the latter you will always find at least a small detachment of the former somewhere close by. This is actually somewhat explicit in the Order of The Ladies Hand including the church of Melanar Bloodmoon among its affiliated churches right alongside Benaedrass. (And the more, um, imaginative can certainly think of other reasons why they might want a skilled healer next door when they visit the Red Lantern District.)

I see we have some people with basic carnal experience here :P

I have yet to write out my spell lists so I don't know what I will have. However I expect to have things that you would see every day (sow seed, earth to mortar, etc). I think the fun with those spells beyond realism, is that they give the players an interesting pool to draw from. I as a DM love when my players use something I have put into the game in a new and imaginative way (hard book cover + clothesline = zip line escape; ah good times that).

Quote from: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spellImmunity.htmSpell Immunity[/url] is the worst spell ever.  Spellcasters have every reason to research "slightly different" versions (or even exact duplicates, as the SRD allows that) of popular spells to foil Spell Immunity without compromising the utility of their magic.  Any wizard who uses spell research competently should laugh at that spell.)