The Forge Archives

So, I have this friend.  Let's call him Herb.

Herb wants to run a long-term fantasy campaign.  How long-term?  We're talking years, as in ten or more.  Which sounds like it could be quite a bit of fun; I'm pretty enthusiastic about it.

There's just one problem, which may or may not actually be a problem, and that's what I want to talk about.  He wants to use D&D 3.5.  I've brought up the fact that the system itself is not particularly well-equipped to support the type of long-term campaign he's going for, and as a result there's been some talk of modifying the experience point system to slow the power escalation down.  There's also been discussion about changing the hit points system since three of the other players have a big problem with HP in general and with D&D's damage handling in particular.  Okay, fine.  Throw whatever optional rules you want on top of d20.  To my way of thinking, the bottom line is, d20 is not well-suited to support long-term play from the get-go.

Another interesting little wrinkle in all this is Herb's purported reasons for wanting to run d20.

First, he talks about the flexibility of the system.  Roughly paraphrasing, "If I want to switch to running a sci-fi game, all I have to do is buy one book and we have all the system info we need."

That's as may be, but I thought we were going to be running a long-long-term fantasy campaign so I'm a bit confused as to why that's even an issue.  I do allow that there are a decent number of genre-specific d20 products out there.  I question the validity of the claim that buying a single book would be the only requirement for switching to a new genre using "the same system" when the feats, skills, and various other bits will undoubtedly be different, in some cases radically so.  And if we're using alternate house rules for things like HP and XP, won't those changes also have to be applied to whatever systemic alterations have been made in the alternate genre book?  In my opinion, the idea of "buy one book and presto-genre-change-o" is the major myth of d20.  There has never, nor will there ever, be One Game to Rule Them All, and d20 doesn't come close to that goal anyway.

Second, and to me a bit more encourageingly, Herb is cognizant of the fact that d20 handles tactical abstract combat well, and little else.  His thinking is that he'll be running fast and loose on the non-combat stuff, and using d20 as a detail-oriented fall-back for when we get into combat (which if I'm remembering correctly averages out to maybe once or twice every three sessions with this group, based on my experience playing with these players under this GM with AD&D2 + Player's Options). Fair enough, I can buy that.  The limitations of d20 can be circumnavigated in non-combat situations when Herb is running it.

However, I think the real reasons Herb so adamantly insists on d20 are a little murkier and problematic.  These are not reasons he has volunteered, but I suspect that if and when I bring these up to him he might agree.  For one thing, I think there's a bias based on nostalgia and comfort level.  He's run D&D most often, and like many of us cut his roleplaying teeth on D&D.  He's hesitant to explore other systems because he feels he already knows this one well enough to do whatever he wants.  For another thing, he's into the D&D minatures line, and has spent bunches of money on it, and really wants to use them in the game.

All of which, in my opinion, is bunk.  First, learning a new system is not difficult, and with all the free or nearly free games out there, it's very cheap as well.  Second, "I've spent X dollars on the line" is possibly the absolute worst reason to choose a particular system I can think of.

Even with all that being said, I'd be willing to roll with d20 and see what happens were it not for one unavoidable truth: We're not a combat-oriented group, and when we do get into combat, I believe that D&D's highly structured and abstracted system with grids and figures will frustrate the majority of the players.

Quite frankly, I'm worried. I'd like to be involved in a long-term fantasy campaign, and I'd like for Herb to be running that game since he's a lot of fun to play under.  In support of those goals, I want to do everything I can to ensure the success of Herb's game.  Perhaps most of all, though, I'm concerned with the fact that Herb has actualy gotten visibly angry with one or more of us when we sat down and talked about using something other than d20.  Basically, all of these players want to play in Herb's game.  None of the players want to use d20.  Herb is the only person who does want to use d20, and further, he adamantly insists upon it.

What does all of this have to do with you?  Well, since you've read this far, here are my questions:

Does anyone have experience with running D&D 3 or 3.5 on a long-term basis when combat and dungeon-delves were not the focus of play?  If so, did it work, or tank horribly?  If it worked, what advice can you offer for my group?

Does anyone have experience with running a long-term fantasy campaign (more than a year) where combat was not the focus of play with a system that worked particularly well for it?  What system did you use?  I should point out that GURPS and HERO are not options.

And finally, given my misgivings, do you think I should just throw up my hands and walk away? Your harsh judgement is requested.

My only advice is this, ditch the experience system completely.  If you want to go from first to twentieth level in ten years just allow leveling up every six months or so.  Move to a reward point system that rewards the type of behaviors that you want to see whether it be diplomacy, overcoming non-combat challenges, or "role playing" and let these reward points be used for free rerolls or narrative authority.

It isn't pretty, but it does shift the feel of the game quite a bit.  If your GM wants something a bit closer to the feel of AD&D check out http://www.castlesandcrusades.com/; it is still OGL and I really don't know that much about it, but I am sure it slows down the tremendous advancement pace of D&D 3.

My feeling is that this game won't last a year, nevermind ten.

Later,
Mark

We are probably incompatible thinkers, but the more I think about it the more I think Hero is probably the closest thing to the ultimate system out there.  It has problems, rate of progression, and unsupervised character generation being big among them, with the amount of work the GM has to do being the largest problem.  

Regardless, the D20 combat system is functionally identical to every other game, simply because a book includes a miniatures based representation of combat doesn't mean you have to use it.  For people who like that every game could benefit from miniatures based combat, and for those who don't mind a little more abstraction nearly any game can run without it.  Can I reach him if I charge, (yes/no), can I work my way around to flank him without exposing myself, (yes/no), simple as that, all the minis do is remove the arbitrariness of the GM from the equation.  

The XP rates obviously wont work for your long term plan, but frankly I can't think of any game where you would see any character growth over a few games sessions that wouldn't involve being godlike after 500 sessions, so if you want a game to run 500 sessions you are going to need to slow down the xp gain in any game.  

As to quickly incoporating a new game, many gaming elitists hate the concept of multiple genres under one roof.  And I will agree it has it's flaws especially if that roof is D20 (without magic items most high end d20 characters see no relevant growth, what does a 20th level soldier in Star Wars do he couldn't do 15th, or even 5th for that matter).  But exactly why adding space to your fantasy game would take some herculean effort is beyond me.  If your characters were say picked up on a space ship, would you suddenly know how to use a Gun?  No, in fact everyone would be exactly who they were before, maybe with your next level you would pick up a level in space pirate, but at the time of genre change nothing would be different.  The compatibility of the systems would make that transition pretty seamless in terms of rules.  If you had a house rule on XP it would stay in effect in space, no real headache there, and changing the HP on a space orc (or whatever) would be no different than changing it on a fantasy orc.  

So is it the system I would use were I your friend, nah I would go Hero.  He sounds like the kinda guy who is willing to do his work as a GM, you guys don't sound like munchkin gamers, so char gen shouldn't result in any monstrosities.  But it also doesn't sound like the worst system he could have chosen either.

I've converted my long running campaign recently to Savage Worlds.  It is not perfect.

But it works well enuff for me.  And it is fast compared to d20 or Hero or Gurps.  Magic is a bit skimpy.... but I'm a tinkerer and I've added plenty already.

However, my second choice would be  Arrowflight, that is a pretty interesting system to me.  Maybe a bit complicated in its structure of combat... great for one on one combats... but maybe a handful for lots of combatents.  There are few good reviews on RPGnet, giving you both good and bad points for you to weigh.

My third choice, sorry, is Hero.

My 4th choice would be Basic Role Playing... actually my fav variant of BRP is the out of print SwordBearer... a great little game with wonderful Denis Loubet art... that is my nostalgia factor kicking in.

WEG is coming out with a generic d6 system that ran their Star Wars engine for many years.  I always thought that would make for decent fantasy system.

As for advice:  Bring this thread up to the GM.  State your desire for a long term game is really sparking you... but d20 is not.  See if there is some room to negotiate.  Try to get him interested in the process of EXPLORATION of other game systems.   I have a blast looking at other systems.  But I'm a systems tinkerer... I like that stuff.

Quote from: ethan_greer
First, he talks about the flexibility of the system.  Roughly paraphrasing, "If I want to switch to running a sci-fi game, all I have to do is buy one book and we have all the system info we need."

The same can be said for any number of generic systems, or one-book systems, and most likely they will be better suited than d20.

QuoteDoes anyone have experience with running a long-term fantasy campaign (more than a year) where combat was not the focus of play with a system that worked particularly well for it?  What system did you use?  I should point out that GURPS and HERO are not options.

I`ve GMed several (two) long term fantasy campaigns using Ars-Magica. Ars Magica is particularly suited for long term campaigns, but it has a strong focus on magic. There are actually some fan-written rules for adapting AD&D to Ars-Magica (http://home.earthlink.net/~rhophigamma/ars/adnd_to_ars/index.html), could perhaps be interesting.

QuoteAnd finally, given my misgivings, do you think I should just throw up my hands and walk away? Your harsh judgement is requested.

Do try to enlighten him first...if he closes his eyes to the light, its your call really, but I know what I would do.

Mark said what I was going to about advancement (personal experience supports his position), and Ole mentioned Ars Magica.

I'm simply an echo.

Quote from: ethan_greerDoes anyone have experience with running D&D 3 or 3.5 on a long-term basis when combat and dungeon-delves were not the focus of play?  If so, did it work, or tank horribly?  If it worked, what advice can you offer for my group?

Does anyone have experience with running a long-term fantasy campaign (more than a year) where combat was not the focus of play with a system that worked particularly well for it?  What system did you use?  I should point out that GURPS and HERO are not options.  

And finally, given my misgivings, do you think I should just throw up my hands and walk away? Your harsh judgement is requested.  

Can't really say about D&D3.  I played in a campaign for a few months, but it was basically combat-oriented and I dropped out after that time.  I'd tend to concur about long-term potential.  From people I know, I think D&D3 requires a reset fairly regularly because power rises quickly and higher level action is rather unstable.  

Historically, nearly all of my campaigns have been a year or (more likely) less.  However, I've been running my Vinland game for two and a half years.  Combat happens maybe every 3 or 4 sessions on average.  It's using a simple variant of RuneQuest (basically BRP plus criticals and hit location).  A little while in, I introduced Whimsy Cards as an added rule which have worked pretty well.  Experience is a flat 5 skill points per session rather than checks -- which is an important change, I think, for long term development.  

I would say you want a system that your group enjoys not as a novelty but as a basic engine for a variety of play.  So I would avoid more narrowly focussed systems.  The other worry is escalation.  Some escalation is generally necessary to avoid stagnation, but you want to keep a strict limit on it.  I guess your group doesn't like GURPS or HERO -- or was there another reason you rejected them?  While they're not for everyone, I think they're good models for experience.  Characters can noticeably develop in small steps.  

Basically, my point is having basic types of drama and action that you enjoy, and a setting and system which supports small incremental changes to that.  My impression of both D&D3 and, say, Exalted is that the system changes a little too drastically as you go up in scale.  I'd also recommend Ars Magica, but I don't think its "fantasy" in the sense you were looking for and I can't vouch for the D&D adaptation of its system.

I'm a member in an AD&D campaign that's been running for over ten years.
It is not what I'd call a heavily combat oriented game, but there's certainly combat involved. There's also a lot of character interaction, social/political stuff, etc that I would say take up much more game time than actual combat.

Would the game have been better (from my point of view) with a different system?
Absolutely. But that's just from my view. The GM likes AD&D, knows it like the back of his hand and can run the game off the cuff with no wondering. He's also creative enough to know that the game can support more than just a dungeon delve (even if that's what it is geared toward).

It sounds like you may be getting into a similar situation. It sounds like Herb is comfortable with what he knows and really doesn't want to learn a new system. He obviously thinks he can work with D&D's shortcomings to still create a fun campaign, (and it actually sounds like you do too).

So I'd say, try asking yourself (and the other party members)... Is coercing your GM into using a system he really doesn't want to use, better than just letting the guy run what he wants to? Is D&D so hated by the players that the campaign will be doomed by using that system?
Or will the game be pretty good regardless of the system because the GM will be able to overcome any deficiency of the system simply because he's a good GM? And maybe even... will the game be better because the GM will have no confidence issues holding him back by using a less familiar system?

It seems to me like those might be the important questions.

Hi Ethan,

I've ran 3.0 in the past, for about a year, and recently tried to start a hardcore gamist campaign that fell apart.  Funny enough, between these two experiences, it really pointed out "how" D&D works.

First of all, no one is ever going completely by the rules.  In my attempt at gamism, most of the players were completely turned off by actually having to follow the rules written in the book.  Many folks didn't even know the rules, despite having played 3.0 for some time.  D&D is really a loose collection of suggestions that no one is playing standardised in any sense, and each new group, or even campaign, may require a complete re-negotiation of System in Play vs. System as Written.

In that regards, its going to be vital for Herb to lay out "How" he intends to run the game.  Are social interactions simply run by consensus, or are you going to have to roll Persuade?  If you roll Persuade, do you get a bonus for roleplaying, or are you going to have to roleplay the results?  Are you guys going "by the book" with combat, mini's and everything?  Or are you guys playing it loose?

Unfortunately, these kinds of answers most people have to discover in play, and everyone at the table is usually coming with different assumptions.  This is where D&D usually gets sticky for most groups.

Second, how XP is earned is a big deal.  If the game isn't about combat, then what sorts of things earn XP?  SA style rewards, like Riddle of Steel?  Completing goals?  Who defines the goals?  Are they player defined like Kickers, or GM provided.  Does the GM ever TELL the players what those goals are, or are the players supposed to infer and guess them?

If combat isn't a major portion of the game, what difference does it make if the characters "advance" fairly quickly?  

As far as alternatives, I've played in a year long fantasy game using Story Engine, which was not very combat oriented(maybe two fights between 3 sessions or so).  I found it to be a rather effective, simple and solid set of rules in play, that people can usually pick up very fast, often in play itself.  Character growth was gradual, and "organic", as we'd incorporate many changes into our characters as a direct result of events in play.

As far as your group goes, although Herb may be jazzed, it doesn't sound like too many other people are, and all I can see coming from the game is disappointment all around.  It might be best to see if anyone else would rather play something else, with or without Herb, and also offer to join in "his next game" if it doesn't happen to be D&D.

Chris

Calvin, it seems like my situation is very similar to yours, and you make some good points. You make me feel better about the option of just rolling with things and seeing how it goes with Herb running D&D...

As an aside, I never meant to suggest that d20 is incapable of supporting non-combat situations; just that it's less suited than some other systems.  My primary concern with the system choice is the longevity thing and the power ramp-up inherent in D&D3 less so than in AD&D.  A question for you: Same characters for ten+ years, or different characters? What level are the party members?

For the curious, GURPS and HERO aren't options because Herb hates GURPS and I suspect would dislike HERO.

Arrowflight is frickin' cool. I may just bring that up.  Ars Magica I would have to look at; I know very little about it.  Thanks to all the folks who recommend it.

And I will definitely be pitching Mark's experience "system" idea to Herb and the group.

John, I like what you're saying about having a basic style and changing it incrementally over time - gives me some ideas and food for thought.

Hey Chris,
interestingly enough, we're all pretty jazzed about it, near as I can tell.  I've just got some concerns about the system choice for what we're trying to create.

I really appreciate your suggestions - sounds like another group meeting is in order to really establish answers to some of those "how" questions prior to the beginning of play.

Quote from: BankueiIf combat isn't a major portion of the game, what difference does it make if the characters "advance" fairly quickly?

In my experience, D&D power levels effect three things: Combat, the Skill/Difficulty Class, and Weird Stuff.  (Weird Stuff includes funky core and prestige class interactions, magic items, and all those funky spells that come into play at the higher levels.) And in a less combat-oriented game, the skill and weird stuff issues are going to come to the fore as the power levels go up. That's my concern, anyway.

Knowing Herb, and knowing the group, I can also be nearly certain that Story Engine is not going to work.  Thanks for the suggestion, though.

I ran two OAD&D campaigns that lasted several years each (the first started in 1980 and sort of faded in 1985 or 6, the latter started around 86 or 7 and ran into 92). Experience points were generous, and advancement through the lower levels fairly rapid, but no one ever surpassed level 11 and levels 6 through 8 were more common. Part of this was that the door was always open for new players, who came and went, left characters behind to be run as NPC party members, and soaked up some of the experience--the first group reached 22 characters (including PCs, associated NPCs, and henchmen) and the second topped forty (all of the above plus cavalier retainers, more players were active over longer periods in that game). Still, both groups had core players whose original characters were still in the game at the end. Dungeon adventures were the most common activity, but between the groups there was an overland trip through a blizzard, a massive war in which they were part of the defense of a fort, several other outdoor adventures, and a murder mystery. I never had trouble with any of it, and I played pretty close to the books most of the time.

I don't really see D&D3 as at all similar to earlier versions of the game. The engine was ripped out and replaced with something completely different that has only superficial similarities (you roll the same dice against a completely different chance of success). Overall, I don't see that familiarity with D&D in previous versions lends to understanding the current game, and I don't particularly care for it.

As for shifting between D20 games, I don't see this as one of its strengths--at least, not until someone creates a D20 game that bridges D20 games. Even with GURPS, moving from one genre to another requires a fair amount of rewrite; D20 would seem to involve massive changes between worlds. (Multiverser is one of the few games of which I'm aware that really attempts to make such transitions smoothly; I think CORPS attempted to do so, but I have not yet seen it. Multiverser would not be the game of choice for your situation, I think, due to its de-emphasis of the party concept and pressure toward shifting genres.) It sounds to me a lot like saying we're going to play Monopoly, because if we want we can use the same board and dice and playing pieces to play Parchessi, with just a few tweaks. It doesn't work that way.

But I'm no expert on D20; I very quickly decided that I was underwhelmed by 3E, and never finished reading the core books. I might be mistaken on this. Also, as has been at least implied already, the question seems to be whether to play in the game the referee is offering to run, and if he likes D20 that much, it might be that he can make it work.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: ethan_greerCalvin, it seems like my situation is very similar to yours, and you make some good points. You make me feel better about the option of just rolling with things and seeing how it goes with Herb running D&D...

As an aside, I never meant to suggest that d20 is incapable of supporting non-combat situations; just that it's less suited than some other systems.  My primary concern with the system choice is the longevity thing and the power ramp-up inherent in D&D3 less so than in AD&D.  A question for you: Same characters for ten+ years, or different characters? What level are the party members?

For the curious, GURPS and HERO aren't options because Herb hates GURPS and I suspect would dislike HERO.

Arrowflight is frickin' cool. I may just bring that up.  Ars Magica I would have to look at; I know very little about it.  Thanks to all the folks who recommend it.

And I will definitely be pitching Mark's experience "system" idea to Herb and the group.

John, I like what you're saying about having a basic style and changing it incrementally over time - gives me some ideas and food for thought.

I was hoping I might provide a little reassurance.
I truly believe that gaming is all about the people you are gaming with. Anything else is mostly a bunch of hot air. Sure, a cool system or a fascinating setting is a plus. But the most important thing (especially for a long-term game) is really, really liking the people you are gaming with. There isn't a game on the planet that will overcome a group of people not getting along. But, if just getting together with a bunch of friends on an ongoing basis is the primary goal, and the gaming is a secondary goal for enchancing the fun of getting together, then it really matters a lot less what the actual game is.
In my example...I don't much like AD&D. I certainly wouldn't want to run it as GM, but the guy that's hosting the game feels differently. It's his system of choice. So I let him run his game his way, and just play along. It's still a lot of fun.
I guess what I'm saying is, yes "System Does Matter", but not as much as people might think it does, and there isn't a "Social Contract" in the world that will help me put up with people I don't like for 10 years.

I completely agree with you regarding the shortcomings of D&D (any version). It isn't my ideal system for anything. But with a good GM, it's not so bad.
The experience point system is a problem if used as written, but to be honest I've never seen it used as written. In my example campaign, experience is just handed out in chunks (divided evenly among the players) at the end of story arcs.
After all the time we've been playing, with the same characters, their levels are all in the high teens. They're pretty powerful. They have the feel of characters in the Forgotten Realms novels. The whole world knows the Company of Twisted Fates by reputation, and we've taken down governments. We're an economic force in trading circles and we've done things with (sometimes literally) earthshaking consequences. Once we even went to Hell in a VW Microbus (long story). We've so far surpassed the dungeon delve that it's almost hard to remember what one is. And it's all the result of the GM (or GMs, we've traded off a few times to give the main guy a break) and the players.  

I maintain that if you can trust in the GM, and in the other players, then you can play anything and have a good time.

And if you get into it, and the system isn't working as written... if everybody gets along well enough you can tweak it as you go. You'll probably end up with a home-brew D&D variant, but as Bankuei pointed out...that's pretty much they way everyone else does it.

Quote from: ethan_greerDoes anyone have experience with running D&D 3 or 3.5 on a long-term basis when combat and dungeon-delves were not the focus of play?

I've been playing D&D for years, and there was a 2nd Edition game I was involved in for a good chunk of a decade which concentrated on mystery and social interactions more than dungeon-combat.

QuoteIf so, did it work, or tank horribly?  If it worked, what advice can you offer for my group?

From my POV, it tanked. The game stopped and restarted every six months, because it was never quite going where the GM envisioned. There was a high degree of player frustration. We recieved little-to-no experience points or magic, and given that we were playing D&D, that made me (and my wife) just incredibly frustrated and upset.

Why? Part of it was the disconnect between rules and desires.

Level wasn't supposed to be a big deal, it was a social/mystery game focused heavily on character-acting...but you couldn't just play the character sort you wanted. Instead, you had to abide by wholly gamist level-based markers to determine the character's abilities and progression/path, even though "level wasn't important."

Example: Given the play contract, I should have been able to play an individual with the magical powers equivalent to a high-level mage without worry (ie: level and mechanics, etc, aren't important). Choose whatever career-path I wanted to travel and take it (ie: "I want to play a holy knight with a lot of stealth training...like a spy"), but the rules of the game wouldn't allow me to do so because they were all level-and-class based standard D&D (ie: "The only way to do that is to multi-class, but it will be a couple levels before you're any good at it.").

So, there I was, restricted in skill-set and ability by my level...both of which could only be increased by gaining XP, which was precisely the thing we were not recieving because XP was rare and levelling wasn't important...the game is screaming "level is important, level is important!" and the game group was trying to act as though it wasn't.

Frankly, it was frustrating and dissatisfying, and I doubt any iteration of a D&D-like game would have been able to handle the task. The mechanical priorities are just not there for this type of game and push focus elsewhere.

QuoteAnd finally, given my misgivings, do you think I should just throw up my hands and walk away? Your harsh judgement is requested.

Yes. GM has fit whenever anyone broaches subject of playing "something else" -- holy crap, man! You're staring down the barrel of a huge warning sign!

I, for one, would be seriously worried...because anytime something comes up in play which he prefers and you as a player don't, what's he going to do? He's going to do it his way, and he's never going to do it your way because he won't do it your way now. In addition to its own problems, that doesn't exactly scream "trustworthy" to me -- you know he isn't looking out for your or the player's interests ("no one but him wants to play d20" I quote).

You're making the excuse for him, "But he's fun to play with," but that's really all it sounds like..."I like this guy as a person, so I don't want to insult him, here, let me say this about him so he doesn't sound like such a jerk." I don't see this turning out particularly well in the long run.

Harsh enough?

QuoteDoes anyone have experience with running D&D 3 or 3.5 on a long-term basis when combat and dungeon-delves were not the focus of play? If so, did it work, or tank horribly? If it worked, what advice can you offer for my group?

Yes. One of my most enjoyable ever games was low-combat 3rd Ed. We ran for about 15 months with the players ending up about 11th to 13th level before they all died foolishly in a TPW.

The game worked because of the inter-player interactions we had going - a Paladin of St. Cuthbert (the Lawful neutral god of justice), a complete womanising elven Sorcerer with a cat familiar (who could talk to him telepathically in a slight deviation from the rules), a dwarven monk and a prankster of an illusionist.

D&D helped provide stereotypes and roles for the characters.

The big problem with D&D is that commoners with crossbows are not scary, hell, Hobgoblin armies aren't scary to characters of any significant level. You are basically forced to role out heavy monsters for them to fight.

So, IMO D&D can work, but only to the extent that System Doesn't Matter.

Raven, I understand your interpretation, but it's not as bad as you think.  Herb got irritated, not immediately upon his system choice being challenged, but during a conversation that spanned several hours about what system we were going to use.  The reason he got irritated was a perception on his part that we didn't trust him and his judgement to run a good game.  He is fully cognizant of our misgivings, and feels that he can make D&D work despite those misgivings.  The players, myself included, have some concern, but we're all very much on board with playing a long-term campaign under Herb.  We're all friends, and I'm doing my best to make damn sure that any and all concerns are aired and addressed in an effort to make the game go as smoothly as possible.

Yes, harsh enough.  :) Thanks.  I want you to know I'm not dismissing what you say out of hand, because obviously elements are in place to make your conclusion somewhat valid. But there's definitely more trust involved in the situation than I may have implied in my first post. My situation is more akin to what Calvin is talking about. To sum up and extend your own metaphor: Yes, there's a warning sign in the room, but no one is currently looking down the barrel of it.

Ethan,

Got it. That's a little different than the situation as I read it initially. So good luck with the game! Let us know how things are running after a couple of sessions.

Raven, I definitely will.  There will be at least one more meeting prior to play with the whole group, and I also intend to draw the group's attention to this discussion.  If all of that goes well, and I'm assuming/hoping it will, I'm thinking we'll probably give D&D a go and see where it takes us.  If we tank, I'm optimistic that we'll be able to try something else without too much damage to the group.

Thanks to all for your insights and advice; all of it has been extremely helpful!

Hey Jack - what's a TPW?

Before Ethan closes this thread, I just wanted to throw out a few ideas for replacing the experience system with a reward system.

The first thing is that if you limit leveling up to once every six months, you are going to have major boundry changes everytime a level occurs since D&D3 characters tend to increase in power on an exponential curve.  

One way to do this is to fix the amount of time that passes in the game world in advance.  Whenever you level up, it is assumed that the characters have spent several months studying their craft and that is why they are suddenly better ("after the long cold winter where you each pursued your training with your masters, you return to Starngard, stronger and wiser.")  Perhaps your quest as first level players could simply be to find a master (which you would all do by the time it is to level up).  Every six month period of real time could represent a year in the game world.  After ten years of playing, your characters would have aged from their late teens to later thirties and you could explore all the personal changes that has happened in their lives (wives, children, etc.)

Another way to do this is to plan what class your next level will be in advance, and over the six month period of leveling up, your GM can assign you a hit point here or there, a new added skill rank, a new spell slot opening, etc.  At the end of the six month period, you have slowly accrued all the benefits of the next level and you are ready to start again.  Of course, this does not preclude using the previous suggestion as well, you just don't need the built in "training break," plus it keeps you wondering what your next benefit might be.  However, it requires quite a bit of bookkeeping to keep straight.

A third way is simply not to worry about it.  And that may work fine depending on your play style.

Something that you have to keep in mind about slowing down advancement is the effect that it will have on the game world.  D&D is fairly magic and monetarily rich world, especially in terms of magic items.  If you reward items and treasure based on DMG, but slow advancement down to a snails pace, your characters will end up with a lot more treasure and magic than they would normally have at that level, which may make it harder for the DM to assign proper CRs for when you do have challenges.  This can be affected in several ways.  One is to not do anything at first, and see how it plays out.  Another is to reward fewer treasure and magical items which somewhat changes the default style of play (magic and treasure have suddenly become much rarer in your world which is a massive change in the default notion of D&D, but one that I prefer personally).  Yet another way is to simply avoid the combat encounters which tend to yield these massive hordes, which might be the way to go since your groups style of game play tends to reflect this anyway.

I wouldn't take your groups past endeavors with AD&D 2 as a reflection of play styles in D&D 3.  I ran a campaign from 1998-2002 that converted from AD&D 2 to D&D 3.  Even though the players were the same and the characters were converted fairly well, the style of play changed massively from a character interaction involved campaign to a gamist romp, even though we did not intend for that to happen.  It was not a disatisfying change, but just be aware that D&D 3 will do that to you.  I ended up slowing down the leveling up in this particular campaign becuase it took three years to get these guys to fifth level in AD&D then another year to reach fifteenth once we converted.

As for an alternate reward mechanism, you need to decide how often you want rerolls going on in the game.  If it is once per hour per character, then the GM should at the end of the session award one per every hour played and maybe add one or two to those players who he wishes to reward.  You can also take this authority away from the GM and have the player's vote for who did the best at the end of the session and give that player some extra rerolls (you might even make the GM eligible for that award, ouch!)  Consider other use for these points other than rerolls (such as brief narrative control by the players, etc.)  

For something a little more narrativist in flavor, take a look at adapting The Riddle Of Steel's spiritual attributes.  Each character could have 4-6 destinies, themes and relationships that they can explore, each time that they explore these attributes they gain a free reward point to be used for rerolls.  If you do something like this, I would definitely encourage group character creation with the GM and all the players together so that the characters can exploit the "synergies" between each other and the setting.

Just a few ideas to think about,
Mark

TPW is a "Total Party Wipeout" (all characters die).

The issue here seems to be that Herb in insistent on running D&D while wanting to Drift it so much that it's not really D&D anymore. My experience with this is that it's much like freeform with some really annoying limitations added. Like a poster on the last page, I've seen situations where the players want their characters to focus on non-combat activities, the GM does as well, and when the dice meet the table it turns out the character's aren't as competent as they want to be, because skill checks are so tightly bound to level.

In my D20 campaign, which is a modern-day conspiracy setting with some magic, I've come to realize that I'm really not using the system much at all. The single out-of-combat use of the mechanics that comes up is skill checks, and if you think about it, any skill that matches the character's area of competence is probably going to be at the same level. It's almost like we're playing a weird variant of HeroQuest with the D&D combat rules bolted on the side.

I want combat to be dramatic, and move quickly, so I leave out most of the optional rules. And outside of combat, I adjudicate based on how well the character concept matches the action being taken, how dramatically the player describes the scene, and the audience (other player's) response.

So I'm not really playing D20. But if I'd pitched this game to my players by saying I was using Fudge or Over the Edge, maybe half of them would have agreed to it. It strikes me as a situation similar (although reversed) from your own, and how I dealt with the situation was just to jump into actual play and hash it out as I went along. Of course, the problem is that it's a lot easier to swallow that when you're the GM, and the one doing the Drifting. The situation you're in is that you're basically going to be playing a rules-light variant of D20 that exists only in your GM's head. I can't blame you for being nervous about that.

I think when the group gets together and discusses this, you should focus on the fact that both the GM and players are interested in aspects of the game other than combat, and so a solid understanding of how those mechanics will be handled by your GM will go a long way towards increasing people's comfort level.

Andrew,

Great post and great points.  

If Herb really simply wants to do D20-Lite, maybe he should make his D20 homebrew and write down what the rules in his version actually are.  If anything, with the playtesting that he is getting with this group, he might have something publishable that might be commercially viable.  There certainly seems to be a lot of interest in wanting to drift D&D3/D20 into alternate play styles.

Later,
Mark

Yeah, Andrew, I get the feeling that that's likely how things are going to play out. But I definitely agree with you and Mark that getting some guidelines down on paper (business types might call it "management of expectations") is a good idea.

I think now's a good time going to point "Herb" and the rest of the group to this discussion. Dunno if any of them will participate, but there's a lot of great stuff here that I think will be helpful to our group.

At the risk of gushing, thanks again to all who've provided suggestions.

(long time lurker first time poster)

I've been DMing a 3e D&D campaign almost weekly since 3e PHB and DMG were available, that is technically a long running campaign.  

I noted the experience point issue fairly quickly (14 or so encounters of charcater level are enough xp to gain a level) and decided deal with it in this fashion:

* Players have to work to gain levels, no signs point them to an appopriately challenging but not overwhelming adventure. Don't hand them anything (well at least not often).

* Villains don't hire minions based on the PC levels but based on budget and need.  The guards at the gate  to  the castle of lord dark  don't all of the sudden become bugbears when the characters gain a level.

* Large areas of the campaign  (most of the setting actually) are tied to lowish level play, becasue most of the inhabitants are lowish level. Players wanting the big xp and big treasures have to really go out of the way to find them or take on obvious major campaing elements that may indeed squash them flat.

* new and replacement characters come in at a couple of levels under the average level for the party, you don't get a new 8th level character becasue you just lost an 8th level character just so you can keep up with thw adventure. I even let folks play a second character if they really want to but regardless of party level that fellow is coming in at 1st level.

* player characters win a lot, they also lose. The entire campaign does not at any point depend on PC victory.

* the bad guys want to win, nothing is put in place strictly as a xp boost.

Those points have let me keep playing the same campaign for over a 150 sessions.

While I am biased to a degree, I have a few observations to make.

1) I am Herb (this is not so much an observation as it is a statement of fact, except that my name... Uh... Isn't "Herb", and therefore it's a false statement).

1a) Please ignore #1, as it made little to no sense.

2) I have a very bad memory for rules.  I'm currently working on learning the rules for D20 AGAIN.  I actually learned them once to run a long-distance online game that didn't go well at all (the online medium was overwhelmingly complicated to try to keep up with in real time).  Since I didn't use them for very long, I promptly forgot them.

3) I am, to the best of my knowledge, not some overbearing ogre who is unwilling to consider the players wishes.  If I didn't think that the players could enjoy the game, I wouldn't bother to run (or TRY to run it).  My biggest problem is that I am overwhelmingly busy and have difficulty taking time out to spend learning new game systems.  I like the idea that the basic rules will be useable in multiple game worlds (er... Or universes).

4) I have played under a LOT of game systems and I don't really consider the game mechanics particularly important (for my play style) no matter WHAT game system we're using.  I have at times run games that I didn't even KNOW the game mechanics and whenever a need to know would arise, I would simply ask the players, as in "Hey Bob, how do we handle a skill check?" (this, of course, is assuming that one of the players is named Bob, or at least that I called him, or her, "Bob").  This method of play has worked with very little problem, though it does slow the game down a bit when rules checks are necessary too often.

5) My belief that D20 can be adapted easily to any genre (or at least more easily than learning a whole new game system) comes not from the belief that CHARACTERS could transfer easily to any genre, but that starting A NEW GAME in another genre would not require me to learn a new core rules system and thereby expedite the ability to get started.

6) When I got upset during the discussion we were having about which game system to use, my irritation came more from me feeling personally attacked that any real concern over game system (and I apologized for the reaction immediately).

7) I don't so much insist on us PLAYING under the D20 mechanic as I do insist that the players are willing to TRY it for this game.  We as a group have played many times under earlier versions of D&D and we have always had fun.  This is partly where my frustration comes from - if we have fun each time, why are the players so concerned about it?  Why, suddenly, do they think that it matters when it hasn't in the past?

8) I'm willing to admit that perhaps I AM an overbearing ogre, and have simply not realized it.  I do, however, hope that this is not the case.

9) I hope that nobody takes this message too seriously and assumes me to be a pompous jerk (which I would also deny realizing), as I was simply trying to join in the fun.

10) This looks like a GREAT forum for learning new ways to handle and improve things!  I intend to use several of the ideas presented here (perhaps with slight modification, perhaps not).  Thanks for the ideas!

11) Ethan is a VERY good friend of mine, and I appreciate the fervor with which he is attempting to assure our game success.

12) I will promise (both to my game group AND to the interested parties in this forum) that if we try the D&D game and it tanks, we'll switch to another system - perhaps even GURPS or HERO.

Thanks again for all of the info!

Herb / Jaide / Jai

Hey Jai - wasn't sure if you'd weigh in here or not.  Welcome to the Forge!

I'll speak specifically to point 7: My concern stems from the fact that D&D3/d20 is a very different animal from earlier editions of D&D (despite some obvious similarities).  It's leaner, meaner, and very much geared towards the Dungeon Crawl.  The tighter focus of the rules by its very nature has potential to inhibit the drift to a less-supported style of play. D&D3's system is best suited to support and encourage the hack & slash level-up mentality, regardless of the intentions of the play group. Kinda like trying to go off-road with a slot car. While I think the game has potential to work how you envision it, there's more resistance to change with this system than with earlier editions of D&D.

I don't understand why everyone thinks 3rd ed is more dungeon crawly than earlier editions. I see it as much the same as AD&D2 but with rules that aren't deeply, painfully broken, arbitary and confused. I never played anything with AD&D2 that wasn't a gamist dungeon crawly mess - mostly because the system was so obviously flawed down to its ugly little toes that we never saw any point trying to do anything but powergame with it.

Oh, and the above poster is correct about TPW. Sorry, hadn't realised it wasn't common terminology.

Hey Jack, my only point is that the arbitrary, broken, confused rules of earlier editions are easier to twist around in play than the new hotness that is 3rd edition. While earlier editions certainly support the dungeon crawling paradigm, 3rd edition supports it better. That's what I meant by "different animal" in the post above.

In contrast to your own experience, I've never played a 2nd edition AD&D game that was a gamist dungeon-crawly mess. :)

jaide, welcome.

First off, I DO believe system matters.  It is the filter which affects MANY of the player's choices.  Not just in combat.  But in all aspects of the game.

In d20, once you've gotten to 5th level, a farmer with a sword is not a concern in a one on one fight.  This will "color" everything.  Not good or bad, but it will color how the Players react to the world around them.

If you have problem remembering rules, d20 SEEMS simple, but it is chock filled with many "special case rules".  When we played it, we were forever looking up Spells and MOnster abilities and such.  Skill checks are a bit easier... and in this case, Skills, especially social skills, allow for the kind of game you are talking about much more than AD&D... which had a rotten skills system.

When I ran d20, I gave out 500 or 1000 xp per adventure.  This kept the bookeeping to a minimum.  It meant that killing monsters was NOT the focus... This is no different than giving 3 xp out per adv in Gurps or Hero.

I suggested Arrowflight before.  But let me make a case for Savage Worlds, my current system.  It is much simpler than d20, but surprisingly robust.  Basically, you have to beat a 4 or higher to make a skill check.  Your skills run from 1d4 to 1d12... and PCs get to throw an additional d6 with their Skill die.  Choose whichever is the higher.  

SW has a very different die convention... but it really works.  Its Magic is kinda sparse... but powerful.  A begining Mage can throw his/her weight around pretty nicely.

Quote from: Jaide7) I don't so much insist on us PLAYING under the D20 mechanic as I do insist that the players are willing to TRY it for this game.  We as a group have played many times under earlier versions of D&D and we have always had fun.  This is partly where my frustration comes from - if we have fun each time, why are the players so concerned about it?  Why, suddenly, do they think that it matters when it hasn't in the past?

Two things come to mind based on this paragraph.  

The first is, if you had fun playing earlier versions of D&D, and the goal is to recapture that same kind of fun, and you don't think it's a kind of fun that you've already overdone, then why not use those versions of D&D that are proven?

And the second is, are you sure they were having fun?  It sends up warning flags to me when all(?) of your players (the ones you think were having fun before) want a different system.  Do you see what I mean?  I discovered The Forge only last summer.  I was playing in an almost weekly online RPG with the same fourish guys for years and I was kind of tired of it, but I really like those guys.  I would have said that I was having fun, but I don't really think so, now.  (I still play with this group every other week, and I'm still not particularly engaged in the game, but I still like socializing with them.)  It may be that their (and your?) emotional response to the situation is more complicated than we had fun really suggests.  (Obviously, I can't know...I'm just throwing out food for thought.)

Chris

I'll second Savage Worlds - I own it, and it looks solid and is very straight forward.  Food for thought, Jai.

Also, at this point it's probably useful to point out Ron's article System Does Matter (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html). It's a pretty good primer on some of the ideas that Storn is talking about.

A bit of history: In past games, Jai's relied on the players to follow the rules and take care of all those little exceptions and special cases, and it's worked pretty well when the players are on the same page with regard to Creative Agenda. It can (and has) gotten a bit messy when there are a mix of Creative Agendas at work. In particular, we used to play with a hard-core Gamist who created some problems (and I'm sure Jai knows exactly who I'm talking about). But as far as Jai's point 4 is concerned, I can back him up on that - this approach seems to work well for him.

It's worth noting, however, that I'm 100% in agreement with Storn - System does matter. The game system will definitely color the roleplaying experience, no matter what, by the nature of what sorts of decisions it encourages the players to make, and how it mechanically favors certain actions and outcomes. Whether D&D's coloring of our/Jai's game will be a good thing or a bad thing has kinda been the focus of this discussion. Right now I'm in a "wait and see" pattern, but I'm carefully optimistic about it.

Hey Christopher, I missed your post; I think we cross-posted.

Regarding your first thought: I don't think any of us wants to ever play AD&D2 again. But you do have a point.

Regarding your second thought: In all fairness, our play hasn't always been perfect. But we did have two campaigns that rocked on toast.  I have a feeling those two games are going to serve as a model or yardstick for the sort of play experience we're going to be shooting for.

Whoo Hoo, Herb! (Welcome Jai, BTW)

*****

If you just want everybody to try D20, and are open to switching later, I've got a couple warnings.

If the players are open to altering/losing abilities/effectiveness a few months into the game, then no big whoop - you've got little to lose.  If they aren't, your transition period is going to be a cranky one.

Also, whatever system you start with is going to forever impact the feel of the game.  If you start off building D&D3E characters, the game will be about rangers, thieves, fireball slingers, and so forth.  You'll end up with characters that are very me-against-an-army.  Contrast with if you start with something like Ars Magica, you'll get a completely different feel from the outset.  Very me-and-the-world-around-me characters.  I'm not just talking about color/setting, but about the resources and attitudes of the characters, which by extension will effect how the group approaches situations (because of the characters the system has allowed them to build, and the tools it has put in their hands).

About six years ago I want to run a Cyberpunk game, everybody else wanted to play White Wolf: Something or Another.  I ended up porting Cyberpunk to the Storyteller system, and even though we are no longer using a system that resembles either, that original setup is still very much affecting the campaign to this day.

*****

The basic reasoning behind Mark's recommendation to use a different experience point system is as follows.  Or rather, why I agree with Mark, I don't know what Mark is thinking ;).

In D&D you gain experience points by killing things and taking their stuff.  Experience points are used to improve your ability to kill things and take their stuff.  Very consistent rewards circle.

If you change experience such that you gain them for other reasons, from good roleplaying to the passage of time, then your are rewarding good roleplaying (or whatever) with the ability to kill things and take their stuff.  See the breakdown?

On this topic, I believe there is an incarnation of the D20 rules that doesn't use levels and focuses on skills more.  Might be worth a look.  Anyone know which one it is?  I can't recall.

*****

Also, you mention a bad memory for rules and a lack of time to learn them.  Maybe something simpler or easier to learn might be a better choice for you as GM.

One of D&D3E's design goals was to be somewhat difficult to learn.  It's their concept of "Mastery" (I looked on the Wizards site for the article that talks about this, but I couldn't find it).  "Mastery" is the idea that the more you learn of the rules and how they interact with each other the better able to play the game you become.  The complexity of figuring out which order to buy feats in, what to take at each level, remembering what all the spells do, and so on, is all intentional complexity.  It's supposed to be somewhat hard to learn so that players can feel like "mastering" the system is an accomplishment.

For a long-term game you'll probably end up wanting a game system with lots of options, but you sound like you want something without too much complexity in how the mechanics function.  In my opinion, GURPS, HERO and D20 all fit the bill for lots of options, but they are not simple in implementation.

However, GURPS does have GURPS Lite (GURPS condensed into 32 pages), which is available for free from here (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite).

*****

Just some random thoughts for you.

Quote from: crucielIn D&D you gain experience points by killing things and taking their stuff.

Just a nitpick.  This a popular misconception.  In D&D 3e you gain experience for "overcoming obstacles" not "killing things".  Traps and puzzles have an EL and as such an XP value for overcoming them.  Also, the DMG states specifically that you don't have to kill the Ogre that's guarding the door to get the XP for it.  You simply have to overcome it as an obstacle.  This means you can sneak past it, negotiate with it, kill it or anything else you can think of and still gain XP for doing so.  

However, I do agree with your basic premise. In D&D you gain XP by overcoming obstacles and your reward is a greater ability to overcome obstacles.

Quote from: GaerikJust a nitpick.  This a popular misconception.  In D&D 3e you gain experience for "overcoming obstacles" not "killing things".  Traps and puzzles have an EL and as such an XP value for overcoming them.  Also, the DMG states specifically that you don't have to kill the Ogre that's guarding the door to get the XP for it.  You simply have to overcome it as an obstacle.  This means you can sneak past it, negotiate with it, kill it or anything else you can think of and still gain XP for doing so.  

However, I do agree with your basic premise. In D&D you gain XP by overcoming obstacles and your reward is a greater ability to overcome obstacles.

Ah, cool. My bad.  Combat values do increase with level though, so you still get better at killing things.

You do indeed get better at killing things.  Mostly because that is one way of overcoming obstacles (or at least the one most employed by PCs).  However, you also get better with skills such as Diplomacy, Open Locks, Find Traps, Bluff and others that can be used to overcome obstacles too.  You also get better at spells (if you are a spelluser) and many of those can overcome obstacles without killing anything.

D&D 3e is a Gamist oriented system and a pretty coherent one at that.  The misconception is that Gamist play is about "killing the bad guy".  I'm a Gamist play.  I admit it freely.  D&D is my game of choice.  I like it.  As a player though, I don't immediately respond to every challenge thrown my way with a sword or fireball.  Gamism is about stepping up and overcoming challenges and D&D is good at that, whether it's combat or picking locks or sneaking or magical spells.

I don't mean to rant and perhaps a new thread needs to be started if we are to continue this discussion.  I've just noticed that the Forge seems to have a Narrativist bent to it.  That's fine.  I've just noticed since being here that "killing things" is connected a little too tightly sometimes to Gamism as its goal and I just had to step in an say something.  Anywho...  I've wandered far afield now and will rein things back in.

I get the feeling this thread has somewhat fragmented into several subtopics that do not address the original question. there's been a lot of "here's how I'd modify d20 to support longterm campaigns" and discussions about whether GURPS is really a bad system, but are these things really relevant?

Ethan's problem/question seems to boil down to: he doesn't really want to play d20, but that's what "herb" (Jaide) wants to play. he's mainly asking for (1) better arguments why d20 won't work for a longterm campaign (including examples of failed longterm play,) and (2) possible suggestions for non-GURPS/Hero-style game systems to use as a replacement.

Jaide, on the other hand, wants to only learn one system, because he's having troubles keeping complex rules straight. he recognizes d20 is complex, but he has to learn *one* system, and even though the game will be in a single genre, he might want to play in another genre or with another group at some point -- and d20 seems like a good option for a widespread, multigenre system for him.

now, I understand Jaide's concern; I'm having problems remembering or enjoying extremely detailed rules systems myself (maybe due to age in my case...) this is the main reason why I've been looking at simple elegant systems and trying to design the same; I don't want to mess with GURPS anymore (although I may buy 4th edition, for curiosity and old time's sake) and gave myself a headache studying 3e and its endless lists of exceptions and special cases. but then, this last point also makes me sympathetic to Ethan; I'd hate to force anyone else to learn 3e, because of my own distaste.

still, Ethan's point rests on the theory that d20 is not well-suited for longterm play, and I'm not sure where he gets this idea from. some passing mention has been made that d20 is designed for people who want to discover subtle synergies between feat, skill, and tactics selections, which I suppose would be a distraction from longterm play focusd on mystery or intrigue; but I'm not sure this would really prevent good longterm play.

another thought: from the various descriptions of actual longterm play, it seems to me that D&D or d20 turns into longterm campaigns whenever the GM interprets the experience rules simplisticly (most experience points for killing monsters and taking treasure, less for other things) while simultaneously shifting to a less combat-heavy game. in a sense, then, all forms of D&D are easily driftable from Gamist dungeon-crawl to Sim-or-Nar social/intrigue, with a natural tendency towards longterm play for the latter.

given that, I think a modified d20 is actually quite good for what Jaide is planning. the main thing to keep in mind is to drop the emphasis on combat, eliminate feats and skills with narrow uses, and dissociate character effectiveness/advancement from the experience/rewards system. mainly, don't use miniatures or grids at all, drop combat and metamagic feats, reduce combat to a few abstract level checks. for experience, give half experience for killing someone who shouldn't be killed, double for doing whatever you're supposed to do to that person -- if you are supposed to befriend the sultan, you get double experience, for example. and if hit points are considered an issue as well, just use wound levels (use the names from the official spells as a guide) and roll Con checks when hit. there's no need to be terribly elaborate about it.

Hello,

And I am now stepping in as moderator. The topic's split a lot, as John has accurately pointed out, and it's time to take sub-topics to threads of their own.

Furthermore, bluntly, I am tired of seeing (over and over) two things:

1. Discussions of D&D getting out of hand, emotionally, far out of proportion to its game design features. Let go, people. It's not about your experience of D&D. If you're busy defending your own experiences and viewpoints about the game, then by definition, you have gone off-topic.

2. Conflating D&D and Gamism per se. There is too much painful history, and too much of that history has entered the "teaching steps" of gamer culture, for people to enter into that topic and emerge safely.

So, let's close this thread, identify fruitful and specific topics for new ones, and take ourselves nicely there.

Best,
Ron

Thanks, Ron. I hope you don't mind my adding one last post as sort of a punctuation to the thread (I started this post before your closing showed up and saw it in the preview). I agree now's a good time to close this one down. My first post was probably too broad and I had a number of questions.  To summarize:

Does d20 work for long-term games? How?
Does d20 not work for long-term games? Why not?
What other systems are well-suited to long-term games?
Am I getting into something I shouldn't, or should I just chill?

All of those points have been covered by various people, and I am much pleased with the results of this conversation.

So, anyway, thread's closed. We now return you to your regularly scheduled moderation. (For Jai's and other first-time posters' benefit, "closed" on the Forge means that although the thread doesn't get locked, it's against the rules to post to it.)

Quote from: Ron Edwards
Furthermore, bluntly, I am tired of seeing (over and over) two things:

1. Discussions of D&D getting out of hand, emotionally, far out of proportion to its game design features. Let go, people. It's not about your experience of D&D. If you're busy defending your own experiences and viewpoints about the game, then by definition, you have gone off-topic.

Best,
Ron

I ask honestly and w/o rancor;  How can you expect everyone to have seen the same amount of discussion on d20 that you have?  And if we cannot use our experience with d20 to give an opinion to help BOTH Jai and Ethan...  what should we use?

I really haven't seen high emotions about this issue, Ron, in this thread.  I have seen such issues on other forums... but this seems to be worthwhile thread to me.

I, for one, want to hear more from Jai... and see if this is making him feel defensive... or hopeful and excited about tackling his campaign.  I hope fo the later.  I think the more communication that Jai and Ethan and the group can have, and the more that they can glean from other's experience with d20 (or how game systems affect role playing)... the better.

First off, I want to apologize up front for entering another post, I've been informed that you aren't supposed to do that after a thread has been closed, but I have no other means to address this particular group.

I have a LOT of details I want to discuss about this thread, I'm finding it IMMENSELY helpful, and useful.  I don't understand why the thread was closed, to the best of my understanding, everyone was being helpful, friendly, polite, and providing very good (!!!) information!  There weren't any flames going on, and everyone was participating positively (again, as far as I can tell).

This thread is my first experience POSTING on TheForge, and based on ONLY this experience, I was thinking it was a GREAT FORUM!  I've READ posts here before (based on Ethan's recommendation about specific things), but I've never felt terribly compelled to be a regular member (I've never even bothered to register before!).

So now, I find a very useful and desirable reason to be a regular member of this forum, and it gets shut down with, as far as I can tell, no reason!  What gives?  

Anyway, this will be my last post here (on this thread) as per the rules, and I apologize for violating them as is.

Thank you VERY, VERY, VERY much everybody for your participation - I can't tell you how much it has meant to me!  I was afraid that I would be harrassed as a new member based on the things that had been said about "Herb" before I signed on, but you all made me feel very welcome, and I really appreciate that.

Take care, good luck, and happy gaming!

Herb / Jaide / Jai

Sigh ...

Everyone, please feel free to continue the discussion (or more accurately, bits and pieces of it, on new threads.

Closing a thread means people stop posting to that particular thread, not that people have to shut up about stuff they want to discuss. It means, "Focus on specific targets in separate places."

No more posting to this one, please.

Best,
Ron