ok... i know we have had some discussions on divine magic.. but thats not really my concern.. im in the process of trying to convert my D&D amalgamation over to TROS... because it closer to what i wanted...
i can figure out basically how id need to get the druid converted (he wants to keep his shapeshifting ability), and i have the cleric easily figured.... but how exactly would you convert a paladin?
yeh i know... basicvally a holy knight... well this guy wants to keep all of his abilities (Divine Grace (charisma bonus to saving throws [could be a luck SA]), Lay on Hands (a healing ability [possibly growth and conquer vageries?]), Divine Health (immunities to all magical diseases [uhh... ])..Smite Evil (spiff little extra damage, only useable a certain amount of times a day [i was thinking Drive... maybe], and then of course the Paladin's Special Mount... i could play off the familiars thing for that i suppose...
anybody got some ideas to help me?
Well, for me, the really cool thing about Spiritual Attributes is how widely they can be applied.
Remember a while back when we had that really cool discussion on Magic Items having SA's? How about when we discussed the Force as an SA? Well, how about (some of) the Paladin's abilities are actually based on special SA's.
So, when he signs up, he gets the special ability to Lay on Hands (for example). This is a special SA, not one of his 5. Every time he pleases his god, the SA goes up. Every time he displeases his god, it goes down. When he "lays on hands" he gets to roll as many dice as he currently has in that "SA" and each success heals one pain level of a wound. Or of all wounds. Or whatever. You could even just trigger this off his Faith SA - he gets to roll his entire Faith SA as a healing die pool, etc.
Same concept for many of the paladins other abilities. Every point he currently has in his Faith SA (/his Smite Evil SA) is an extra die per combat round he can use when fighting certain opponents, etc.
And so on. I have not thought through it that much, this is all off the top of my head, but that's the direction I would be heading in.
Brian.
it is alot closer than making him be part sorceror.. lol...
basically im trying for more realistic combat, and a better magic system (the whole reason i bought the game)
but these guys are soo in love with D20 (i like the system), that they typically refuse to play anything else..
so i spent a long while trying to bend the 3rd ed system into something closer to TROS... unfortunately, ive tweaked it so much, that it tends to lose its realistic edge...
i started using vitality points, and wounds, straight from Star Wars D20... so that basically your vitality represented your fatigue..each point of vitality damage was taken away from your pool, and when you had none, you took wounds (to respresent not being able to get out of the way)..
i ended up confusing one of the players, because im used to saying "he hit".... under this system, you didnt really hit til you got wounds... his arguement "that really only makes armor useful when you get hit then"...........i had to steady myself, so that i didnt laugh in front of them too badly...
anyways, back to the point.... i think tying it in on his faith SA would be a nice addition... would you suggest what would amount to secondary SA's for each ability, or would you just have it on faith?
Depends on how much of a catch-all you want a single SA to be. If you map everything to Faith, then he's either shit-hot at all his abilities or terrible at them all depending on what level his Faith is at at the time (of course, this doesn't necessarily sound wrong, but players might not like it.) Also, it begs players to min-max by always leaving their Faith at 5 and just never spending it down).
On the other hand, nobody wants to have to track 17 different SA's either. Something in the middle perhaps; Give him 3 paladin-related SA's and map the abilities to them so some can be high while others are low, etc. Map them to different aspects of his faith so they don't all go up or down at the same time. If you want to really have fun (and hell, this is the way TROS should really be played anyway, IMO) put them in conflict. His "always do what the church wants" and his "compassion for the needy" will butt heads real nice when the church asks him to clear out all the poor people sponging off the goodwill of the church in the alleryway at the back, etc.
Brian.
quite true... alright, i'll take some time to think about the SA's... i think i do like the part where is goes up and down based on the gods approval... i definately will use that, to some degree at least
What if he could spend his Faith SA, say a certain number for each ability and spend them for his Paladin abilities. Might work.
Good luck
well, the idea is to not make him have to pay for them with his faith... kinda gives the wrong impression
heres what i had in mind
Divine Grace - covers healing, and gives extra dice to protect against diseases
Divine Justice - covers smite evil, plus the obvious turn undead.. in this since it would solely be dice either added to an attacks damage, or (in the case of turning), it would function in a sense like the banishment vagery.
im trying to put together a 3rd one...
those two (plus a 3rd one i am working on, which may go unneeded) will function in a way like derived stats...
in that each one would be eqaul to half of the characters faith SA... they would ebb and flow based on the character himself... do something good for the deity, maybe he'll get a point on divine grace.... do something bad, maybe he'll lose a point..
sound good Brian?
see the game consists of a Priestess, a Paladin, a Druid, a Wizard, and a Fighter/Ranger
the last 3 would be fairly easy to convert over.. the two more religious ones needed something, to represent god granted abilities... and i think these derived SA's would work great
Looking good so far, mate. Three sounds like a good numner to me, though. WHat was your idea for the third SA?
Brian.
im not sure... everything really seems to be covered... as far as paladins go...
smiting, turning, healing, divine health (immunities)
the only one ya cant really do is the old divine grace, which was "charisma bonus to all saves"
the only thing not really covered, is the special mount... and i could just let the paladin have familiars sorcery gift..
i had thought about "Miracle".... basically something awesome, not covered under the others... water to wine kind of things...
Why not have the third one just be "Faith"? It seems roughly analagous to divine grace and whatnot - when he BELIEVES in something, he gets the bonuses. Thus a "faith bonus" comes into play in certain "saves."
I do like "Divine Miracles" as your third, though, if you go that route.
How will these go up or down, though? Will they be analagous to the Faith SA in some way?
as it was described to me (its from a friend of mine)
basically if the miracle would help spread the beleif of the god, then it might happen
that does seem a bit... much for me, more of a roleplaying thing, than something that needs to be statted out
i thik i may just stick with the two i currently have
i just cant come up with anything for a 3rd, even though it would seem like there should be
the next topic on this...
How to Represent the shapeshifting abilities of a Druid
---
i had thought perhaps Growth, Summoning, Sculpture, and probably conquer (previous examples with growth seem like it might require it, so that you can trick yourself into thinking it doesnt hurt like hell)
thoughts?
Why bother with all that guff? Just give him some animal forms and tell him he can change into them and it takes 6 exchanges less the number of successes he rolls on whatever SA is appropriate. Hows that? There are plenty in OBAM's chapter 2, and it's easy to make more as you need/want them.
How do you represent the fact that as he gets more powerful a D&D Druid can shift into bigger and better forms when TROS doesn't have levels?
(This just came to me and I don't know why it never occurred to me before, because it's brilliant, if I do say so myself)
Base it off Insight. What better gauge of how "experienced" a character is? At insight level X he can do such-and-such, but at insight level Y he can do this-and-that. And so on.
Brian.
hey, works for me, sounds like a good plan as well... so thats everything i do beleive... other than getting the wizard familiar with the new casting system... lol
and usually not being able to cast a spell every turn... heh (unless of course the CTN is low)
i havent gotten a chance to look at, or look through OBAM, will it be helpful for a game thats coming from a D&D perspective?
I think so. Rules for horseback combat and animals are always useful, plenty of NPC's for emergencies, plus lots of beasties (magical and otherwise) which is kind of what D&D games would be all about.
I like to think the book is generally useful, regardless of how you play TROS.
Brian.
i hope so... i'll also give updates on the conversion process..
and i'll probably end up using your character gen Brian, mainly because its alot easier than doing it by hand... question on that though...
my printer doesnt work right now, can i send the saved files to another guy (who has the character gen software), and have him load them to print them?
just curious..
if i can get my printer drivers updated to win2k i can get adobe acrobat again then i'll just PDF them
Yes, no reason why that wouldn't work.
Brian.
Just an idea for the cleric type or it might work for the paladin's lay on hands ability.
Allow the player to heal wounds as such:
TN = 3 X wound level
1) Allow PCs to roll Faith vs TN, each success heals a wound level.
or
2) Auto heal up to level four wounds (or level five, as long as it's not an automatic kill). Then make the PC roll Faith vs TN to keep from losing points of Faith, with no insight if they lose them. Each success on this roll allows them to retain one point.
The second one is risky, but would allow you to bring back a friend from death's door.
What do you guys think?
I think.... this is probably going about it backwards. Whats the point in reproducing another games rules? These are all worthy efforts and all, but I suspect that you might get a better Paladin by using straight SA's they stand. Sure, it would be more Kninghts Templar than D&D, but I think this is porobably a good thing. All too often the Paladins healing power is not much more than secondary medic status so the party doesn't need to commit a whole character to Cleric. This is wholly aganist the spirit of TROS, IMHO.
Further, I think lets NOT consider the Druid - the twinkie D&D druid with a fondness for nature. Druids with a distate for bloodshed? I thikn not. Surely it would be more interetsing to take the ideas behind the druid concept (whichever you choose) and use TROS magic system to achive them.
whether it is against the spirit of TROS or not doesnt matter, i am not trying to convert peoples ideas, if you had read actual post, you would know that i am trying to do as a direct of a conversion as possible
regardless of "twink" status, my whole point is to convert an existing D&D game, and convert it seemlessly.... why would i want to weaken the pre-existing characters to something else?
sure i could make the paladin nothing more than a bladeslinger with a high faith SA.... that screws the player out of everything he has been working for, for the past 6 months though.
i dont want to come off sounding harsh here... but as i said, the plan is to convert a current game, granted the players arent at super levels (around 8 or so)
i dont just want to switch games on them, or gimp their characters, ya know?, the idea is to make this as seemless as possible, and as painless as possible
Prophet-
No worries, man. I dig the conversion.
Set paladins up at a c race priority and give them the same approximate abilities as gifts or skills.
Jake
For myself, I would never use Paladins as we're discussing here in an actual game.
I just like shooting the shit about TROS rules and how flexible they are, you know? It's fun coming up with variations. And hey, you never know, something that comes purely out of the ether might prove potentially useful later on (like current insight level being used as a measure of character age/experience/marurity/whatever).
Brian.
Quote from: Jake NorwoodProphet-
No worries, man. I dig the conversion.
Set paladins up at a c race priority and give them the same approximate abilities as gifts or skills.
Jake
well sounds cool
out of curiosity, what would be the difference between DEF for race... i bet this has been discussed before... but wouldnt most people opt for race priority F?... for standard soldiers at least...
just curious thats all, i do agree with the race choice though.. very wise choice
Quote from: Brian LeybourneFor myself, I would never use Paladins as we're discussing here in an actual game.
I just like shooting the shit about TROS rules and how flexible they are, you know? It's fun coming up with variations. And hey, you never know, something that comes purely out of the ether might prove potentially useful later on (like current insight level being used as a measure of character age/experience/marurity/whatever).
Brian.
hell, i probably wouldnt if we were doing a straight TROS.... if the player had come to me asking to play a paladin (and we were already doing TROS, not D&D)... id simply say, create a soldier with a high faith score.... but because of the need to keep true to the campaign... some sacrifices must be made.
OK, well, I didn't mean to be TOO critical but I'm inclined to think this sort of exercise if more effrot than its worth. Way back when I built my own hit location based system, it was a direct D&D port and came with a huge set of secondary rules designed specifically to handle the port. There was a whole-page table working out how much HP damage translated into wounds - with the consequence that Magic Missile became the Finger of Death. I ended up with about 12 pages of real rules and 60-odd pages of conversion rules. I have negative memories of the whole saga; gave me the sensation of constantly running just to stand still. So, I'm kinda worried that the whole thing is more trouble than its worth, and would recommend one of two approaches:
1) new system new game. Try it out and then decide which to play, and forget about the conversion
2) re-imagine the characters from scratch as if their play history to date was all backstory, and express them purely in the TROS rules.
Quote from: contracycleSo, I'm kinda worried that the whole thing is more trouble than its worth, and would recommend one of two approaches:
1) new system new game. Try it out and then decide which to play, and forget about the conversion
2) re-imagine the characters from scratch as if their play history to date was all backstory, and express them purely in the TROS rules.
1.) im not a noob here, i have tried the game, using the base line rules, cant you understand i simply which to convert a game that is planned to be an epic campaign?
2.)re-imagine the characters... funny.. you tell that to a bunch of players who have spent the last 6 months working on their characters..
i am swithcing to TROS because it handles things that i wanted to do, better than D&D, but i will not make them play new characters, or suck ass versions of their current characters, to do that is like telling them, "ok i know you spent this time on your characters, but you can forget it, lets switch to a new system"
im trying to get them interested in TROS, by converting their characters seemlessly... if i cannot, they will not play... simply put
im sure you can somehow understand that
this isnt an excercise in futility... im adding two SA's to the system... the rest converts just fine... i wont need any extra rules... spells?.. the hell with D&D spells... i have told the spell casters that they will be stronger in TROS, and be able to create their own spells.. .they love that... so why try to convert D&D spells, when they love the new stuff much better?
Sure, well, always trust the engineer in the field, I say. It's just that my expeirnce set off warning bells; IMO I wouldn't try to change horses mid-stream in this case and would instead finish the campaig with the existing rules. Butr if you're confident that you ahve buy-in from the players, go for it. Just for clarity though:
Quotei am swithcing to TROS because it handles things that i wanted to do, better than D&D, but i will not make them play new characters, or suck ass versions of their current characters, to do that is like telling them, "ok i know you spent this time on your characters, but you can forget it, lets switch to a new system"
I'm not saying new characters or suck ass characters; I specifically mean just let them write the character down as it is withoutb the calculation steps in the TROS chargen. Just write the D&D character as it is now in TROS terms. My experience is that two systems have their own checks and balances and that direct ports tend to distort those balances. Frex, a D&D thiefs backstab damage multiplier is totally redundant, because one blow from anyone can kill you stone dead; but part iof the thives XP cost has been raising the backstab ability. Stuff like that.
Quote from: contracycleSure, well, always trust the engineer in the field, I say. It's just that my expeirnce set off warning bells; IMO I wouldn't try to change horses mid-stream in this case and would instead finish the campaig with the existing rules. Butr if you're confident that you ahve buy-in from the players, go for it. Just for clarity though:
Quotei am swithcing to TROS because it handles things that i wanted to do, better than D&D, but i will not make them play new characters, or suck ass versions of their current characters, to do that is like telling them, "ok i know you spent this time on your characters, but you can forget it, lets switch to a new system"
I'm not saying new characters or suck ass characters; I specifically mean just let them write the character down as it is withoutb the calculation steps in the TROS chargen. Just write the D&D character as it is now in TROS terms. My experience is that two systems have their own checks and balances and that direct ports tend to distort those balances. Frex, a D&D thiefs backstab damage multiplier is totally redundant, because one blow from anyone can kill you stone dead; but part iof the thives XP cost has been raising the backstab ability. Stuff like that.
part of their XP cost?.... you must not have played 3rd ed.... well anyways... the party consists of a druid, a paladin, a fighter/ranger, and a wizard... a fairly easy party to convert.. but they wont be standard starting TROS characters... they will be a little better than starting...
for the most part, there isnt much to be converted that worries me, with the exception of making sure the paladin was still represented as he is.. hell, i could run it as just faith, but then you'd have to figure out why he can do it, and others with faith cant.... which was why i wanted some specific SA's based on faith, but not faith.
well... everything went fine, til the person playing the cleric complained about not having as many possible spells as she did in D&D....
i went step by step and worked on every problem she could come up with, til this one...
i even added a "double your MA in spells you can ready cast".... wasnt enough.... so i said screw it...
im going to still do a TROS, but im just going to put my D&D game on hold til i can stomach it again
Sometimes, you just have to give up and stop trying to push round gamers into square games :-)
Brian.
my problem is that i tried really hard to keep the game, because we had decided to go to epic... now theres talk of another dm converting these characters possibly to hero 5th edition... good luck i say... lol
im at the point where i dont really want to do any D&D anymore....
for likely the same reasons jake stopped
I know what you're saying. Went off D&D many many years ago, came back to try it with 3e "it's fixed. No really. Honest", and then went off it again. Maybe I'll pick up 6th edition or so in another 10 years and see what that's like :-)
Brian.
Prophet 118 wrote:Quoteim at the point where i dont really want to do any D&D anymore....
Brian Leybourne wrote:QuoteI know what you're saying. Went off D&D many many years ago, came back to try it with 3e "it's fixed. No really. Honest", and then went off it again. Maybe I'll pick up 6th edition or so in another 10 years and see what that's like :-)
I too have had similar experiences with D&D. 3e brought about what I feel are a couple of abominable tendencies in gaming:
The first being the tendency to "computer RPG-ize" traditional tabletop or pen and paper rpgs. 2e AD&D was a convoluted system, but it was alright... it wasn't overly realistic, nor was it completely over the top (well, apart from being able to ride around on 1,000 year old dragons a-la dragonlance, oh, and be sure to disregard the entirety of the forgotten realms setting). Anyway... that's not the point. It seems that the d20 system of role playing, and especially the roll-playing aspect of it, has been reduced to a number-crunching game of piling on the bonuses and stacking the odds, until your character is just a pile of +2s and +4s and circumstantial modifiers and racial adjustments and (insert endless wave of horseshit here). It's like playing final fantasy... in order for anything to be challenging to your character, you have to play in a world of ever escalating freaks, because your character is a freak. I just couldn't find the fun in that anymore.
The second thing that really bothered me is something that was supposed to help the industry as a whole, and bring new people into the game... The prevalence of "d20". With the open-license agreement and what not, anyone is able to put out a product and say that it is for use with the d20 system. That's good. I tend to use about anything I find interesting as sorce material or inspiration. The main problem I have is with the gamers, I guess... People don't tend to like to learn new systems... I for one, love Deadlands : The Weird West and Deadlands : Hell on Earth. At one point I wanted to start up a Deadlands game at my FLGS, but everyone who was interested would only play Deadlands d20, so I bummed a copy of the rules off a friend, and started studying and converting the rules from "not quite D&D with guns" to something more akin to the original... Needless to say, it didn't work out that well. The d20 system was so ill-suited to the level of grittiness that the original deadlands captured that I hated running it, and dropped the game after a couple of weeks when my PCs wouldn't convert to the original rules. Overall, I think the d20 system has done some good for role playing as a hobby, but not as much as we were told it would.
That's why I love TRoS so much, it's gritty and realistic without having an over complicated rules system, and there's not alot of tweaking that you have to do to make it whatever you want it to be...
Anyway, sorry if I've run long in my ranting.
Ok.... This is silly....
All I hear on the internet is how horrid D&D is.... I happen to like D&D.
Why? Because it's a good system, a good game, and it's popular. It's only as screwed up as the DM and players make it. The last serious D&D campaign I ran (3e, by the way) didn't have a single magic item in it... at least, not in the traditional sense. There was a coffin-like stasis chamber, but that's about it....
Magic was pretty rare in general. That's the way we played it. Experience points were given out for role-playing. Combat was rare. 3rd Edition D&D is only Diablo with dice if you let it be that.
If that's your complaint, then the problem doesn't lie with the system, it lies with the DM. You make of it what you want. That's why we play these games.
I can see that the canned stuff from WotC is a lot like people describe. I agree. I despise the thought of a PC being able to buy a magic weapon in a shop. What nonsense! I hate that the people designing the worlds and such for D&D these days think that Diablo and Final Fantasy are RPGs. But that doesn't mean that the system is broken. It means that you have to think for yourself. Which shouldn't be a problem.... after all, we roleplayers have been coming up with our own worlds and adventures for decades, so nothing's changed. If you're like me and you think that Frostbrand should be a unique named weapon, rather than a flavor of sword the PCs can buy, then make it so!!!
But don't sit and whine about the system just because your DM is too lazy to do "his job" and make the world interesting and realistic. Get a new DM, or better yet, do it yourself for others who feel the way you do. Can't find players who want to roleplay rather than roll-play? Get new players. Hell, the hobby needs all the recruitment it can get - go out and make new players!
Sorry about the rant folks, but sometimes, I just get disgusted with the whining I hear all over the net.
Brandon
PS: I happen to love TROS, for those who don't know (Jake and others can vouch for that). But that doesn't mean I can't like D&D too.
I'll agree that the DM makes the game Brandon, but the reality is that many people aren't interested in a more realistic DnD. Also, systems tend to lend themselves to certain styles of play. An over the top TRoS game would be difficult to do, but not impossible, just as a gritty game of DnD wouldn't be impossible... just extremely hard to pull off. People tend to have preconcieved notions about a game based on what they've experienced in the past with different GMs, and many players forget that the GM is the one who makes the final call. It seems to me that many people don't have the inclination to trust the GM that is neccisary to make an enjoyable game, especially if said GM deviates from the "book rules".
You know that I like to deviate from the more "traditional" role playing settings and such in my games, and the main problem that I've encountered is that many people don't want to play in any setting that's not based around a Tolkienesque world or a generic "european middle ages" world. This seems like a giant hurdle to me... trying to convince people that while there are no buckles to swash, it doesn't mean that there are no swashbucklers... Or that while there are no knights, chivalrous and honorable men (and women) still band together to combat the less noble forces of the world.. Shit man, I ran TRoS in Middle Earth, and it was really hard to get people to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to look at the world through their character's eyes... to see what was really going on in the story... because they had common misconceptions about the world around them. I guess that alot of the problems that I have with most gamers stems from their past experience with shoddy systems and poor GMs, and their tendency to think that because this is the way so and so did it, then I will do it that way too. I guess that's where my disgust for the d20 system comes from.
I guess that my main point is that while DnD can be fun, and is popular, it should be left as DnD. Instead of being ported to other game types, there are tons of better ways to play Deadlands or superheros or modern or whatever you're looking to play than trying to make it out of d20.
To me, it's like trying to use a hammer to cut a board in half... wrong tool for the job.
Quote from: Rattlehead
But don't sit and whine about the system just because your DM is too lazy to do "his job" and make the world interesting and realistic.
Equally, don;t sit around whining about the fact that your product gets publicly dissed a lot just becuase your game designer was too lazy to make an entretaining system. Oh dear, the consumers are unhappy - clearly we need a new type of consumer.
Now, rightly or wrongly, I think D&D in most of its varieties is a steaming pile of dogshit. I recognises that this is Just My Opinion, so please don't lecture me on the point.
QuoteSorry about the rant folks, but sometimes, I just get disgusted with the whining I hear all over the net.
Indeed, indeed.
contracycle wrote:QuoteNow, rightly or wrongly, I think D&D in most of its varieties is a steaming pile of dogshit.
LOL... I'll second that.
Quote from: DraighI'll agree that the DM makes the game Brandon, but the reality is that many people aren't interested in a more realistic DnD.
Then you're playing with the wrong people.... Find new ones. :-D
Quote from: DraighAlso, systems tend to lend themselves to certain styles of play. An over the top TRoS game would be difficult to do, but not impossible, just as a gritty game of DnD wouldn't be impossible... just extremely hard to pull off.
Gritty D&D is easy. I did it. Any DM worth his dice bag can...
Quote from: DraighPeople tend to have preconcieved notions about a game based on what they've experienced in the past with different GMs, and many players forget that the GM is the one who makes the final call. It seems to me that many people don't have the inclination to trust the GM that is neccisary to make an enjoyable game, especially if said GM deviates from the "book rules".
I have very few house rules, myself - as you know. I don't like to deviate from the book rules. But, that doesn't mean that you can't work within those rules in whatever way you please. But, you
do have to always be clear that the DM has final say. Still, if the DM is pushing for fun rather than policing the rules, then it's usually pointless anyway. If the players break a minor rule and the result was an exciting and fun event, then it's worth it. The rules are only a vehicle... A means to an end.
Most importantly, the DM should make it clear that his world is different and the experience will be different from the canned D&D experience. In my case, powergamers need not apply. They won't be happy in Brandon-Land.
Quote from: DraighYou know that I like to deviate from the more "traditional" role playing settings and such in my games, and the main problem that I've encountered is that many people don't want to play in any setting that's not based around a Tolkienesque world or a generic "european middle ages" world. This seems like a giant hurdle to me... trying to convince people that while there are no buckles to swash, it doesn't mean that there are no swashbucklers... Or that while there are no knights, chivalrous and honorable men (and women) still band together to combat the less noble forces of the world.. Shit man, I ran TRoS in Middle Earth, and it was really hard to get people to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to look at the world through their character's eyes... to see what was really going on in the story... because they had common misconceptions about the world around them. I guess that alot of the problems that I have with most gamers stems from their past experience with shoddy systems and poor GMs, and their tendency to think that because this is the way so and so did it, then I will do it that way too. I guess that's where my disgust for the d20 system comes from.
That's exactly what I'm saying! You're disgusted with d20 when you should be disgusted with the people you're playing with. The system doesn't make the game. You do. Here's a little exercise to try: Strip away the rules. Give your players a description of a character that you rolled up in 3rd Ed. D&D. But don't let them know that it's a D&D character. Just let them know that it's a fantasy RPG. Then begin the campaign. Make it roleplaying, not roll-playing. Let the players think it's your own homebrew rules for a while. See how they play without the rules to shape their preconceptions.... see if that helps.
Brandon
Rattlehead wrote:QuoteHere's a little exercise to try: Strip away the rules. Give your players a description of a character that you rolled up in 3rd Ed. D&D. But don't let them know that it's a D&D character. Just let them know that it's a fantasy RPG. Then begin the campaign. Make it roleplaying, not roll-playing. Let the players think it's your own homebrew rules for a while. See how they play without the rules to shape their preconceptions.... see if that helps.
I'd rather just play a system that doesn't make me feel like I'm having an aneurism.
@Draigh - I agree. D20 doesn't work for everything. D20 Call of Cthulhu doesn't work. D20 Deadlands doesn't work. At least not for me. I think a lot of it comes from the level-based character development and such.
As far as the Open Gaming bit is concerned, I think it's a good idea, but not for every setting/game.
@Contracycle - You have every right to have an opinion. Everyone does. That's not the point. The point I'm making (that you've clearly missed) is that if you're going to complain about something, complain for valid reasons. If someone doesn't like D&D, that's fine. I couldn't possibly care less. But if someone's going to cry about how it's so horrible because it's all hack 'n slash then they need to look at their DM, not their rulebooks. For example, some people don't like games that use experience levels for character advancement. That's a good reason to not like D&D. But if your DM runs the game in a way that you don't like, then that's not the game designers' fault. And if you're a DM complaining about how the game is, then you should look at how you're letting your players down... unless your players want the canned D&D, which most apparently don't.
Brandon
I simply find that I've moved past DnD. I want more from my game than I feel the system can give me. I look back on my time spent playing DnD with rather fond memories, and in some ways regret not being able to fully enjoy 3rd edition. I found TRoS through the WotC forums and it was like water to a parched throat. To me it's fresh and innovative. However my main problem with DnD isn't rules or mechanics but certain types of players that I don't want to associate with anymore, and unfortunatly to me they seem drawn to DnD likes moths to a flame. But the bottom line is as long as you and your group is having fun who cares what the other groups are doing.
MonkeyWrench wrote:QuoteI simply find that I've moved past DnD. I want more from my game than I feel the system can give me. I look back on my time spent playing DnD with rather fond memories, and in some ways regret not being able to fully enjoy 3rd edition.
Thank you for putting what also feel in more eloquent terms than I am able of expressing at the moment :).
Quote from: Brian LeybourneI know what you're saying. Went off D&D many many years ago, came back to try it with 3e "it's fixed. No really. Honest", and then went off it again. Maybe I'll pick up 6th edition or so in another 10 years and see what that's like :-)
Brian.
yeh.... hehe... heres the list of changes i was doing for my D&D game...
---------
General Changes: Minimum class skill points 4+Int, X4, 4+Int per level; Reputation Scores (start at +0, and increase according to chart below), defense bonus only adds to armor class, not reduction. Profession skills add a +2 synergy bonus to all related skills, for every 5 ranks in profession.
Vitality/wounds: Wounds is equal to your constitution score, Vitality points are what your HP used to be, roll your class die + con bonus for every level. Vitality refreshes at the rate of your level +con per hour, or twice your level +con per hour for a full nights rest.
Vitality/Wounds descriptive perspective: Vitality represents your ability to avoid actual damage, you have a pools of points that slowly reduce as you "take damage", the fewer the points you have, the more likely it is you will take wounds eventually. Vitality measures how well you can get out of the way. Wounds are actual hits, and usually are pretty severe, upon taking any wounds damage, you become fatigued (-2 to all attacks for 1 round), and must immediately make a fortitude save (DC 5+ the wounds taken in that hit)
AC: is dex plus 10, plus class defense bonus, OR Dex plus 10, plus half of armor bonus. If you wear armor you do not get your defense bonus only armor bonus.
Damage Reduction: armor class bonus applies to damage reduction (plus con). A rogues Sneak attack, does damage ignoring targets armor damage reduction.
Weapon Stats: A weapon that once had an 18-20 critical range, now has a 19-20, a weapon that had a 19-20, now has a 20, and weapons that had a 20, are still a 20. Rolling a critical does damage to wounds, so the multiplier has been changed to a plus, instead. It ignores the armor side of damage reduction, but not constitution reduction.
Equipment: there are 3 levels to masterwork, which add a+1 for each level (level 3, would be a +3 to either attack, or a skill bonus, depending on equipment), which is the extent that an item may be done, unless the character, or NPC has access to the master-craft class function, in which case 3 extra levels may be added, but only they made add bonuses to damage, these are considered non magical in all purposes, the cost of masterwork is as noted in the book, though the DC for masterwork level 2, is 15 points higher than the previous DC, and the DC for 3, is 10 higher than that. The master-craft DCs are set differently and will be added shortly.
Combat Options:
Half Swording: taking a total of –4 from your damage, though the increased accuracy of the technique, adds a +4 to your attack roll, you may choke up on the blade of a long sword (bastard sword, great sword), by doing this. This technique may only be done when crowded by a foe, or when in a situation where you may not be able to fully draw, or swing your weapon. You may not use Power Attack with this option.
Half Spearing: taking a total of –4 from your attack roll, you choke up on the neck of the spear, and then use the stats from the Short Spear entry in the PHB, though you add your strength modifier to damages 2 times, though you may not make a power attack with this option.
Charge: a charge is a full attack option, and follows the same movement restrictions as before, the changes to it are as follows: a standard +2 on the attack roll, +1 to damage for ever 10 feet traveled, and –1 to ac for every 10 feet traveled.
Spells:
Spells that add points to attack (bless, ETC) may be cast in an alternate manner, you may spend extra mana points to increase the bonus gained. 2 extra mana points on top of the normal cost, will increase this bonus to +2 you must select this to either to go attack, or to damage, you may elect to have some go to damage, and some go to attack, so long as it equals the amount you spent. Maximum increase in this manner is a +5.
No spell requires material components, except for those that require a focus, or are rare/unique components.
Healing spells in regards to wounds/vitality, healing first goes to wounds, and anything left over spills over to vitality
Clerics no longer have the ability to spontaneously cast a healing spell, since no one has to memorize/prepare spells any longer.
Recovery Spells:
These spells may be cast in place of one of your normal spells; they cost only 1 mana point, but grant you spell points back, depending on the level you decide to cast it as
1st level = 1d4+1, 2nd = 2d4+1, 3rd = 3d4+1 only, there are only 3 levels of recovery spells, though higher ones are rumored to exist (must research them)
The downfall is that a fortitude save is required, the DC is 10 + the number of points regained, if failed, you pass out from the stress and strain
Continually recovering will cause you to make more saves, at a higher difficulty, the first recovery in a chain is at base cost, and the 2nd is at a +2, the 3rd a +4, and so on.
However this recovery interrupts your bodies natural recovery, and instead of having to rest for an hour to gain your level in mana back, you will need to rest the number of times in hours past the 1st recover (IE, if you cast 4 recover spells, you will have to rest 3 hours before your mana will start refreshing)
Save DC: the save DC is 10 + Will save
Mana Points: Spell point cost per spell = (Spell Level * 2) - 1. (0 level costs are .5)
The base number of spell points a spell casting character receives is based on the spells per day chart for each class. For a given character level, convert the number of spells for each level into spell points for that spell level, then add up all the spell points. Remember to include any zero level spells, bonus spells for specialization or feats, domain spell, etc
Bonus spell points for exceptional ability scores are accounted for in a similar fashion. Suppose our fifth level wizard had an Intelligence of 18. This would give the wizard one bonus spell of each level from 1 to 4, which translates into (1 + 3 + 5 + 7) = 16 spell points. However, since a fifth level wizard can cast at most third level spells, he would only get (1 + 3 + 5) = 9 bonus spell points. When he reaches seventh level, he would then gain the bonus spell points for the bonus fourth level spell.
Meta magic feats work in a new manner, if a meta magic feat requires that a spell be cast as a higher level, then you would spend mana points as though it was that level (say a meta magic feat that raises a fireball from a 3rd level spell, to a 6th level spell, it would cost (6*2)-1=11.). The new change is that they are no longer feats, but abilities that every caster can do.
Recovery: mana points come back at the rate of level per hour of uninterrupted rest, though after 8 full hours of sleep, the spell caster is at maximum spell points.
A certain amount of meditation time it still required for all casters. Current caster level*2 equals the number of minutes that must be spent in silent meditation
yeh... well i tried to do D&D, i tried to get past it being a computer RPG... or more like a MMORPG.... but i couldnt... neither could the players i was playing with...
i wanted something more, something with more substance, hence me purchasing TROS many months ago
Rattlehead,
I used to feel the same way- its the GM and players who make the game-not the system. But after reading the "system matters" essay I had an epiphany. The system is just as important to the game as the players.
I've spent hours and hours trying to take games that where made for a certain style of play and drifting them to meet my expectations of play. Now, I understand that what I really want is a game mechanic/system that meets my needs as a player for a particular style of play without any drift.
Saying that you can run D&D as anything other than a hackfest is certainly true, but the game itself was designed to play a certain way and regardless of how you drift it from the original intentions D&D is a game about killing stuff, taking the loot, leveling up and kewl powers (ala feats). The whole "story" aspect is and always has been secondary to what D&D was designed for. And again, there is nothing wrong with that.
I dislike d20, not because I think its a bad system or doesn't play well, but because it doesn't play well for what I want to do while gaming and because there are better systems (read that as more focused, designed with a particular goal in mind) for playing what I want, without drift.