|
"2e doesn't have player traps" and "2e has kits" do not belong in the same belief system.
There was one kit - the swashbuckler I think? - that literally was just a rogue but better in every way. It was "you're a rogue but you also can use these weapons oh and you get to have full specialization in them.
Oh but wait, there was a downside! The downside was "your life is exciting." You know, your life as an adventurer. Was exciting.
This is just false.
There were two different swashbuckler kits - one was for the Warrior (Fighter) class and the other was for the Rogue.
The fighter version got none of the rogue abilities and the Rogue Swashbuckler had to have a higher score range than a regular thief (as idilippy pointed out) and gained the ability to disarm a foe (with his one weapon). In addition the "life is exciting" is downplaying a class drawback which amounts to the swashbuckler being involved in drama/bad luck at almost every opportunity.
In addition the rogue version gets to fight as a fighter with his one weapon of choice (rapier, etc) but no, he was not allowed specialization with that one weapon. As a matter of course he was required to spend all his weapon proficiencies until he had the stiletto, main-gauche, rapier and sabre as proficiencies. So he doesn't get to pick a weapon beyond this limited selection till 8th level.
He also was required to pick fixed non-weapon proficiencies as part of the kit: Etiquette and Tumbling (two out his three starting rogue NWPs).
Special Hindrances: Trouble seeks out the swashbuckler. This is something that the DM will have to play very carefully if the Swashbuckler is to be balanced with the other thief kits.
When there's another Swashbuckler around - thief or warrior - intent on proving that he is the finest swordsman in the world, it's the PC Swashbuckler he seeks out and challenges (often in the middle of some illicit activities). When there is a lovely lady (or handsome young man, as appropriate) in distress, she or he will naturally cross the Swashbuckler's path, and pull him into the tangle. When the thief is practicing burglary on his uncle's mansion, the old man decides to return early from his journey. Life conspires to make things difficult for the Swashbuckler, and the DM should always throw just a little more good-natured bad luck at this thief type than at any other.
You're going to compare this with balance issues brought on from CoDzilla and exploding DCs in 3rd edition?
Or to the original 3hp deliberate trap "Toughness" feat? Designer confessed trap classes in 3rd edition?Really?
Keep reaching
Players will die?
Not just their characters?
Now that is harsh.
;)
|
|
I think the Swashbuckler emphasizes something that has been degrading from edition to edition, faith in the DM. In 2e, and presumably 1e(I haven't played it or done more than a cursory reading over the core books) the DM was trusted to correctly roleplay the downside to characters like the Swashbuckler kit for thieves, Myrmidon kit for fighters, Bladesinger from one of the Forgotten Realms books, and even the Paladin. Each of those kits is slightly better than the base class they come from, but came with roleplay downsides that, with good DMing, offset the mechanical advantage.
+1
There were no kits in 1e, but there were classes that had more power than the fighter - namely the Ranger (starts with 2d8 hp) and the Paladin (multiple powers).
And yes, if you don't rp the limitations of the latter two you just have more powerful fighters. The DM needs to step in an enforce class limitations on actions and activity. Without that you would have these classes be 100% superior. Their limitations - while based on DM adjudication vs. mechanical - need to exist to keep the classes balanced vs the fighter.
Good stuff, especially:
Unavoidable instakill encounters plainly SUCK. They slow down the game (making new character) and change the way players experience the campaign. And they slow down the players (getting paranoid about every tile or brick).
I'd take that one further and say unavoidable anything sucks. If the players feel that something is unavoidable it ruins the immersion for them, and if the DM wanted to make an unavoidable plot he should write a book. Players should always have some chance to avoid a situation, even if it's a really low chance in some cases.
There were no kits in 1e, but there were classes that had more power than the fighter - namely the Ranger (starts with 2d8 hp) and the Paladin (multiple powers).
And yes, if you don't rp the limitations of the latter two you just have more powerful fighters. The DM needs to step in an enforce class limitations on actions and activity. Without that you would have these classes be 100% superior. Their limitations - while based on DM adjudication vs. mechanical - need to exist to keep the classes balanced vs the fighter.
Yeah, I didn't know about kits and 1e but I knew that the Ranger and Paladin were better options than the fighter purely mechanics-wise. I can see why some people, especially those many who have played with a bad DM, would feel that having the DM be in charge of balancing a character was a bad idea, but I always felt that was a good thing. It showed faith in the DM built into the game rules, and since a DM is ultimately responsible for the game regardless of the edition or rules-set I feel that the rules themselves showing a little faith in the DM was a good start.
I think the Swashbuckler emphasizes something that has been degrading from edition to edition, faith in the DM. In 2e, and presumably 1e(I haven't played it or done more than a cursory reading over the core books) the DM was trusted to correctly roleplay the downside to characters like the Swashbuckler kit for thieves, Myrmidon kit for fighters, Bladesinger from one of the Forgotten Realms books, and even the Paladin. Each of those kits is slightly better than the base class they come from, but came with roleplay downsides that, with good DMing, offset the mechanical advantage.+1
There were no kits in 1e, but there were classes that had more power than the fighter - namely the Ranger (starts with 2d8 hp) and the Paladin (multiple powers).
And yes, if you don't rp the limitations of the latter two you just have more powerful fighters. The DM needs to step in an enforce class limitations on actions and activity. Without that you would have these classes be 100% superior. Their limitations - while based on DM adjudication vs. mechanical - need to exist to keep the classes balanced vs the fighter.
I'm all for +1ing on this, but my experiences lean me more towards the Prof. Cirno side of the argument. I don't think he's reaching per se, I think his experiences just mirror my own when it comes to kits. In my wife's 2nd ed game, for example, the non-kits were for NPCs- all the PCs were either kits or multi-class, and it went on like this for YEARS. It's easy to say that they(and my friend, who was DMing for me, although it did not get to that point for many, many years, and I think skills and powers mitigated it on a lot of levels) were just "doing it wrong", but I think that there were a WHOLE lot of people who were, in that sense.
I think the Swashbuckler emphasizes something that has been degrading from edition to edition, faith in the DM.
The problem with 'faith in the DM' is that not all DM's are created equally.
In my experience, there are two main ways a great DM is forged.
1: Lots of Time, Experience, and trial-and-error, with a good relationship with open communicative players who deliver feedback.
and...
2: Being brought up under the wing of another great DM.
There are many, many DM's who just pick up the game and start running it. Among these DM's, there isn't any real room for 'faith in the DM' because the DM doesn't know what he's doing until years later (if at all, Time and Experience are nothing if there isn't honest feedback coming as well.)
In my mind, a game should be sufficiently codified that a new GM can run the game reasonably well, and not too many things fall on his shoulders, that he doesn't bear the weight of too much 'faith.'
That's my two coppers anyway.
Now this I can +1.
the Rogue Swashbuckler had to have a higher score range than a regular thief
To me, ability scores as balancing factors not only didn't work for 2E, it was actually counterproductive.
Because most of the character options beyond the "basic four" required some kind of punishment high stat in a stat you didn't really need for anything, every 2E group I've ever encountered inevitably gravitated towards very generous stat generation. Sure, they'd start with straight 3d6 in order for a while, but eventually it occurs to somebody in the group that no one's ever had high enough stats to play an abjurer, and they'd sure like to try it for variety instead of make a fifteenth straight wizard. Or paladin, or druid, or whatever. Eventually you're doing something ridiculous like 4d6, reroll ones, drop the lowest, twelve times and pick the six best of that. Just because otherwise you're leaving most of the possible character options on the table -- options which aren't really any stronger than the base ones -- and mechanically the first thief you made isn't a whole lot different from the hundredth.
In addition the "life is exciting" is downplaying a class drawback which amounts to the swashbuckler being involved in drama/bad luck at almost every opportunity.
To me, that never even seemed like a drawback, to be honest. Your drawback is that you're more involved in story, get more of the DM's time and focus, etc.?
i have seen ideas on these boards (other boards too) such as
no sundering
*seriously who sunders anything?*
no scenarios where the pcs are in prison cells without any equipment,
*Who wants to play a game where you have no equipment or freedom and the only way to get freedom and equipment is to become a slave to whatever the powers in be are?*
no sending excessively high CR opponents after the party,
*Why would any person want to play a game where you have no chance of winning?*
no tracking of encumbrance and supplies,
*It’s supposed to be a game of excitement not an exercise in bookkeeping.*
conveniently open magic marts everywhere
*Not in any game I played in.*
clerics get to ask thier gods for whatever spells they want now. it used to be based on whatever spells the GM felt like giving you at the time.
*Unless the god is a jerk or the cleric has been naughty why wouldn’t the god give his chosen messager the spells they prey for?*
point buy, your stats used to be left up to the dice
*DM - Sorry the stats you rolled only allow you to become a crappy fighter or a worse thief.
Player - But I want to play a mage.
DM -Well after this character dies you can hope to roll better on your next character.
Player – I’ll just sitout this game then.*
unlimited downtime.
*If they have the skills or funds to survive why not?*
|
|
I'm all for +1ing on this, but my experiences lean me more towards the Prof. Cirno side of the argument. I don't think he's reaching per se, I think his experiences just mirror my own when it comes to kits. In my wife's 2nd ed game, for example, the non-kits were for NPCs- all the PCs were either kits or multi-class, and it went on like this for YEARS. It's easy to say that they(and my friend, who was DMing for me, although it did not get to that point for many, many years, and I think skills and powers mitigated it on a lot of levels) were just "doing it wrong", but I think that there were a WHOLE lot of people who were, in that sense.
I'm not saying that the kits were all balanced against each other or were even that great - but posting false information about a kit is just bad. Especially when you are tying to make a comparison with a super flawed rules system such as 3rd edition. He's bringing up an example to explain an imbalance and his example is wrong.
Because most of the character options beyond the "basic four" required some kind of punishment high stat in a stat you didn't really need for anything, every 2E group I've ever encountered inevitably gravitated towards very generous stat generation. Sure, they'd start with straight 3d6 in order for a while, but eventually it occurs to somebody in the group that no one's ever had high enough stats to play an abjurer, and they'd sure like to try it for variety instead of make a fifteenth straight wizard. Or paladin, or druid, or whatever. Eventually you're doing something ridiculous like 4d6, reroll ones, drop the lowest, twelve times and pick the six best of that. Just because otherwise you're leaving most of the possible character options on the table -- options which aren't really any stronger than the base ones -- and mechanically the first thief you made isn't a whole lot different from the hundredth.
You should talk to my DM about that one (bolded part)
This goes back to my original argument about softball DMs and abusing the Dual-class system. If the DM is going to play ball with his players (softball) then yeah you will gravitate towards high scores, all PCs being Dual class, etc. We don't do that.
If you roll crap, re-roll and then roll crap guess what? You probably going to be stuck with crap.
I made two PCs last weekend for 2nd, all my players rolled up exceptional player stats, I rolled crap. I rolled several sets of stats -all crap. My other players rolled two sets for each PC and that was it.
I had one guy with a 17 who was lucky enough to be a Paladin (using his one 17 for his CHA). My other guy was even worse. So what? I played the guy and I had a blast. Could his stats been better, yes. Does that call for 3rd edition - no.
And with regards to one thief looking like the hundredth that's applicable to 3rd edition. Every fighter and rogue is basically the same - casters only being different and varied by spell selection and choices and specialization. When you compare one Necromancer with another they are pretty much the same. Same dilemma you laid out for 2nd you just get more trap and bad choice options in 3rd edition.
Traps built in deliberately by the game developers, now that's sad.
What it amounts to, for me, is when our options were play 2E with crappy stats again and play indistinguishable-mechanically-fighter-#17897 or play something else, we always opted to play something else.
And that's true of pretty much every 2E group, unless only one person is willing to DM and they're iron-fisted about it, and they players are desperate enough to play to put up with it. I've seen that tried a number of times, and inevitably the group is still playing Call of Cthulhu or Shadowrun or anything but D&D six months later.
As for this:
And with regards to one thief looking like the hundredth that's applicable to 3rd edition. Every fighter and rogue is basically the same - caster only being different and varied by spell selection and choices.
How can that be true when the 3E character builds with as few specialization options as possible still makes many more choices than a 2E character gets to make? I'm sorry, but no coherent argument can be made for that.
Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive
I seriously think these four skills should be eliminated from the game. They reduce many things that used to be resolved by roleplaying to rolling dice.
The flipside to that is, now you've made the worst (as in, useful for the least number / least important / most replaceable things, unless you're a class with features tied to it) stat in the game even worse.
Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive
I seriously think these four skills should be eliminated from the game. They reduce many things that used to be resolved by roleplaying to rolling dice.
I've heard this argument before. It seems to come up every now and again. I've yet to encounter a realistic way of handling this, but I'm glad it doesn't stop people from trying.
Only charismatic players should be able to play charismatic characters. Only really strong players should be able to play really strong characters. Only really pious players should be able to play really pious characters. Only really agile players should be able to play really agile characters. Only players that can blow things up by flicking bat poo can play characters that can do that.
my DM is getting better about it, i just have to give him a matter of extra gentle nudges in the right direction. he is putting effort into his reformation and he is not as much of a killer DM as he was 3 years ago. i've spent nearly 4 years with the guy. i've never played 1e/2e but the guy tended to have that style initially. i'm sure that by December 2012, he will be greatly reformed. reborn as a newer, more enjoyable dungeon master. i'm starting to enjoy his newer methods a lot more now. his situations are no longer unavoidable and a great deal of his encounters are more "winnable" than they used to be. it has been a long time since he has resorted to the Cheese potions. i beleive that converting over to pathfinder was the biggest positive step in his reformation. it's a work still in progress though. sometimes, the past suddenly gets stuck on my brain in annoying ways and seems to feel like it's happening in the present.
|
And Sense Motive? How do you even do that fairly without a skill? "I sense a disturbance in the force." "Based on what? That bad soup served at the last inn messing with your mind?" Etc etc.
How do you even use that skill anyway? I feel silly when I ask the players to roll it, because it instantly tells them 'dude is hiding something' regardless of if they beat the Bluff roll. And I hate to roll it secretly only to say 'you don't believe him'.
I removed a post. Posting while angry is never good.
How do you even use that skill anyway? I feel silly when I ask the players to roll it, because it instantly tells them 'dude is hiding something' regardless of if they beat the Bluff roll. And I hate to roll it secretly only to say 'you don't believe him'.
And Sense Motive? How do you even do that fairly without a skill? "I sense a disturbance in the force." "Based on what? That bad soup served at the last inn messing with your mind?" Etc etc.
This is one reason I ask players to make some rolls for me every game, I keep them listed in order on a separate page. The rolls are mostly used for perception, or knowledge checks, or as above, sense motive. If I run low on rolls.. I have them roll a few more for my list. As I am a constant doodler, it is hard to tell when I am scribbling and when I am marking off one of the rolls. This was a suggestion I stole from ENworld long ago.
Greg
clerics get to ask thier gods for whatever spells they want now. it used to be based on whatever spells the GM felt like giving you at the time.
One thing I've thought of. People should keep in mind the distinction between the player and the character. Just because the player gets to choose the spells, doesn't necessarily mean that the cleric is demanding specific spells from their deity. Alignment restrictions on divine spells already keep most of the more egregious spell choices out of the hands of players.
Oh well. Didn't need that bonus point anyway. :PNot the difference between kindness and weakness.
The difference.
That joke did so not work out.
You're supposed to ask "the difference between what?"
And I'd have said "Sorry, I am not allowed to give you hints!"
Could you please pretend to laugh?
I have no fewer than 10 splat books for 2ED/AD&D (and I'm certain that I do not own them all)
So you say some of them are stolen? Why do you have stolen books? Stealing books is naughty!
;-P
|
|
Oh well. Didn't need that bonus point anyway. :PNot the difference between kindness and weakness.
The difference.
That joke did so not work out.
You're supposed to ask "the difference between what?"
And I'd have said "Sorry, I am not allowed to give you hints!"
Could you please pretend to laugh?
ROFLCOPTER. :)
The bad/broken rules to the poorly thought out philosophy behind d20 gaming have left me a little more than burnt out.
That's funny, because you would have to torture me for about one week longer than I am physically and psychologically able to withstand without dying and then going stark raving insane before I'd play the train-wreck that was 2e again.
Different strokes for different folks.
I removed a post. Posting while angry is never good.AAAAAAAAAAARRGGGGGGGGGHH!!!!!!!!!! *smashes keyboard*
All right Mr. Hulkspinner, into the time-out corner with you until we can get you a new keyboard. Next time try not to succumb to, well, whatever it was. No more posting until you're back to a nice pale complexion, not that bright green, it clashes with your avatar.
I think the Swashbuckler emphasizes something that has been degrading from edition to edition, faith in the DM.
I think it's less a matter of edition, and more a matter of people becoming more and more aware (through advancements in information technology, the coming of the internet, all that stuff) just how bad a lot of those DMs were.
If I had thought for years that it was perfectly normal that the DM killed us off arbitrarily and then found out that it was actually a really s#~#ty thing to do, I'd lose faith in DMs, too.
I mean, I had similar revelations, playing with DMs and not thinking much about their performance (since I only ever played with these few DMs), until I got into a new gaming group and had a different DM. That DM was so much better than the others that he could run circles around them. It was a difference like Tiger Woods compared to some three-year-old kid whacking at a ball with a stick.
At that moment I started to develop a sense of what makes a good DM, what makes a bad DM, and how to tell the two apart.
I'm sure I am not the only one with an eye-opener like this.
Players will die?
Not just their characters?
Now that is harsh.
;)
Of course! You're not playing a real hardcore game unless your own life is on the line.
Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive
I seriously think these four skills should be eliminated from the game. They reduce many things that used to be resolved by roleplaying to rolling dice.
I don't.
If the shy guy wants to play someone who can say things in a persuasive way, let him.
You don't require the archer to step outside and hit your apple tree with a real bow and arrow for every attack, either.
Of course! You're not playing a real hardcore game unless your own life is on the line.Players will die?
Not just their characters?
Now that is harsh.
;)
"It was my fault Black Leaf died. I can't face life alone."
--Marcie
How do you even use that skill anyway? I feel silly when I ask the players to roll it, because it instantly tells them 'dude is hiding something' regardless of if they beat the Bluff roll. And I hate to roll it secretly only to say 'you don't believe him'.
And Sense Motive? How do you even do that fairly without a skill? "I sense a disturbance in the force." "Based on what? That bad soup served at the last inn messing with your mind?" Etc etc.
You roll it for them.
Or ask them for a roll every now and then, to throw them off balance. (Incidentally, you should always ask for Perception checks or stuff like that with no real reason. Great way to instil paranoia. And as for the things I have planned to do to my players in Kingmaker.... Let's say I'm optimistic that with 4 words, I can make them quake in their shoes! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!)
Or wait for them to say "Wait, is that true? I roll Sense Motive". Not the perfect solution, since Sense Motive should be reactive, but if your players are sufficiently paranoid.... ;-)
Of course! You're not playing a real hardcore game unless your own life is on the line.Players will die?
Not just their characters?
Now that is harsh.
;)
"It was my fault Black Leaf died. I can't face life alone."
--Marcie
By the way: Has mind bondage be updated for PF already?
|
|
Of course! You're not playing a real hardcore game unless your own life is on the line.Players will die?
Not just their characters?
Now that is harsh.
;)
"It was my fault Black Leaf died. I can't face life alone."
--Marcie
"The thief, Black Leaf, did not find the poison trap, and I declare her dead."
I think the Swashbuckler emphasizes something that has been degrading from edition to edition, faith in the DM.
I think it's less a matter of edition, and more a matter of people becoming more and more aware (through advancements in information technology, the coming of the internet, all that stuff) just how bad a lot of those DMs were.
If I had thought for years that it was perfectly normal that the DM killed us off arbitrarily and then found out that it was actually a really s#**ty thing to do, I'd lose faith in DMs, too.
I mean, I had similar revelations, playing with DMs and not thinking much about their performance (since I only ever played with these few DMs), until I got into a new gaming group and had a different DM. That DM was so much better than the others that he could run circles around them. It was a difference like Tiger Woods compared to some three-year-old kid whacking at a ball with a stick.
At that moment I started to develop a sense of what makes a good DM, what makes a bad DM, and how to tell the two apart.
I'm sure I am not the only one with an eye-opener like this.
Later on in that post I say that I could see how people playing with bad DMs would not want to leave anything in his hands, but honestly a bad DM will ruin any game not just 2e. I guess I've been lucky enough never to have a bad 2e DM, though I've had a number of bad DMs who have run 3e and 3.5e, so I've only experienced the highs of 2nd edition while I've seen both highs and lows with 3e and 3.5e.
Anyways, as you said everyone has a preference, I like many of the things 2e has to offer and also like Pathfinder and even 3.5e if there is a reasonable restriction on the unbalanced feats, spells, classes and PrCs allowed.
You don't require the archer to step outside and hit your apple tree with a real bow and arrow for every attack, either.At the same time, using strict RAW, you can't even be suspicious of someone without rolling dice. That's just silly.
Could always take a 10. :D
You don't require the archer to step outside and hit your apple tree with a real bow and arrow for every attack, either.At the same time, using strict RAW, you can't even be suspicious of someone without rolling dice. That's just silly.
Not quite true. You can be suspicious all the time. Whenever you want, but you can't "read" a person without rolling dice.
A successful Sense Motive check doesn't mean you're suspicious. It means you're quite sure the guy is not honest.
To pull the kit discussion back to topic (and, as an aside, I don't think there have ever been a run of RPG books as inconsistent in quality as the "The Complete _____ Handbook" series, ranging from still useful today to even my 13-year old self saying "someone got paid for this?"), the fluff to crunch ratio was pretty vast. Trying to treat the kits as analog to archetypes or PrC - at least how the latter is used in fact - as regards to equal amounts of rule, is on the weaker side.
|
Now this I can +1.I think the Swashbuckler emphasizes something that has been degrading from edition to edition, faith in the DM.
The problem with 'faith in the DM' is that not all DM's are created equally.
In my experience, there are two main ways a great DM is forged.
1: Lots of Time, Experience, and trial-and-error, with a good relationship with open communicative players who deliver feedback.
and...
2: Being brought up under the wing of another great DM.
There are many, many DM's who just pick up the game and start running it. Among these DM's, there isn't any real room for 'faith in the DM' because the DM doesn't know what he's doing until years later (if at all, Time and Experience are nothing if there isn't honest feedback coming as well.)
In my mind, a game should be sufficiently codified that a new GM can run the game reasonably well, and not too many things fall on his shoulders, that he doesn't bear the weight of too much 'faith.'
That's my two coppers anyway.
I'll throw another +1 at this. Well said. It takes years to become a good DM, I know I'm still working on it.
|
|
And yet, for all of that "focus on combat" in 1e, the Player's Handbook and the DMG combined have about 30 pages (out of 350) devoted to combat. The rest was devoted to characters, spells (and a lot more utility spells - i.e. non-combat - than 3x/PF core) and building the setting.
What you're glossing over, intentionally or not, is what percentage of the book is full of esoteric charts for things that never should have charts in the first place.
Your assassin wants to kill somebody? No need to play any of that out, just roll on the assassination chart and you'll find out if you managed to do it or not.
You roll to hit? Well, that roll would hit the AC 8 guy in leather armor, but it misses the AC 10 guy in no armor with that weapon.
And then there's the chart that tells you what kind of harlot your randomly encountered. I hope it's a brazen strumpet and not a sly pimp!
(I like 1E, actually. I had fun with 1E. But there's really no escaping that in its way it's the RPG equivalent of that weird uncle you only see at Christmas and Easter.)
Nah, the harlot chart? It was a subset of another chart of random urban encounters, which helped me flesh out urban areas. And each entry had role playing hooks to work in so they didn't feel so random.
There were all kinds of gems buried under the minutia, different things to remind you how to bring a scene or setting to life.
One of the most common house rules back then was to ignore the "weapon v. A.C. stuff. Weapon speed factors were neat, a dude with a light weapon should have some initiative advantage over a hulk with a huge two handed beast, all things being equal.
The assassination chart isn't really that different from "observe three rounds, victim gets a save", still just a die roll.
I'm not arguing 1e isn't a little crusty. After 20 years of tinkering and house rules, my game looked a bit more like 3x in some ways than 1e. I'm just saying the rules support "role" play just as well as 3x/Pf. And that we roleplayed complex, deep characters back then, we just didn't have numbers to define some stuff.
One of the most common house rules back then was to ignore the "weapon v. A.C. stuff. Weapon speed factors were neat, a dude with a light weapon should have some initiative advantage over a hulk with a huge two handed beast, all things being equal.
And thus began the ruination of the Crossbow in RPG's for generations.
Somehow, the Die damage hasn't changed since the 70's on almost all weapons.
People forget though, that the Crossbow didn't his as HARD in 1ED, but had a modifier to punch through armour.
When people abandoned that model of calculation, they never adjusted the crossbow back.
Shame designers, shame shame shame...
from what i heard about Kyrt's system overhaul, i like that much better than anything my saturday DM ever did. it's been over 6 months and kyrt still hasn't posted his finished houserules. my saturday DM, William, still needs time to be reformed. now instead of posting premade penalties, he just refuses to adapt premade AP's to a different set of pcs than the module assumes. here is my interpretation of the difference between Kyrt (who's game i am waiting on) and Weekly William.
William is old, closed minded and doesn't allow much room for creativity and growth. his other players are a mixed bunch who fall in submission to seth the powergamer. seth gets a lot of DM attention and frequently abuses will's leftover "Noble Card". in other words, in william's games, include blood ties to a noble family in your backstory, you get huge bonuses. depending on your class. he also tends to recycle monsters and never comes up with unique descriptions. all of his chain devils are female and look exactly like the bestiary entry for example.
Kyrt is young, creative, and innovative, allowing room for creativity and growth. he encourages creativity rather than stifling it. and is willing to adapt things to suit his player's needs. and has had no exploitable cards that i noticed. he also explores mechanical boundries that will will never cross.
does MSN charge you to chat on your mobile? i'm afraid to check up on you because i don't want to excessively bill you
Well said! Aye!
Well...
I suppose DMs are like any other creature, and to me it is DM ... GM is what u have in World of Warcraft or Everquest. DMs have a varied list of talents and in that regard some have more talents than others. Add to that the fact that there are people with 3 talents that use all three and those with 5 which use only two. Finally DMs are susceptible to the "Woes of the Real"; those things that happen to them in every day life that they have to carry about with them... baggage. If you add then the DM's capacity, output and psyche then you have a pretty good idea of what your experience will be when you show up at his house on a Friday afternoon to romp through the weeds.
I do not play as much as I want to any longer. Work and life ... excuses, excuses. I can tell you that when I run my games I make certain that everyone knows that I am in charge, to the extent that I will not let any one person ruin everyone else's experience. However, I have never had to make that point more than once to a newcomer because the veterans typically would protect their experience for themselves. So when you are starting up a new game you have to play the "dad", but after that it rather runs on solar power (it does not require you to be "draconian").
In reference to limits, I refuse to set boundaries rather I let the milieu set the boundaries. I have the luxury of having writen over 200 modules for my own world and in addition to that I have eight 2 inch binders full of narratives on towns and villages that people have played in since 1976. The game systems change and I change the core rules, but I always play in the land that I know. This one rule is what I believe has made my adventures so successful over the years. If the DM knows the place - and I mean REALLY knows the place - then he does not need to provide "random" encounters. I know that when you travel from Beaver Claw to the Fatted Calf Inn that there is 30% likelihood that you will run into a solitary undead creature in the first stages of that...