Author Topic: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)  (Read 14801 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ckafrica

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 24
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #80 on: November 02, 2008, 12:14:07 PM »
Anyone who begins an arguement with me based on the idea that the PCs are chosen by the gods because Peter and Chris are holding the character sheets instead of Dave or Mike is going to face one of two possible responses. You can choose which one seems more fitting to you.

1) That is entirely contrary to everything I believe in as a designer, a player, and someone who may or may not DM (again) some day. It makes the PCs special for no reason having anything to do with the characters, but having everything to do with...something else.

Who the fuck are these people and what do they have to do with what I said. I said PCs are the stars of the game. That is any person who is holding a character sheet and sitting across from the DM. That makes them special.
If they aren't the stars of your game as a DM, then you are a shitty DM who  is publically masturbating in front of your PCs at how awesome you can make the NPCs seem. Remember Gandalf is the worst kind of NPC you could ever make.

Quote
2) You're compensating for something when you play, obviously.

I live in a tropical paradise where I don't pay taxes, go scuba diving on the weekends, live with my hot girlfriend, and drink 50cent beer while playing D&D with my friends. What exactly might I be compensating for? Try not to make ignorant statements, they make you look like you are compensating for something.

Quote
I'm perfectly willing to accept and agree that the PCs are special. If we play Pendragon (which I hope we don't for other reasons, so I'm refering to the setting), I hope that you can outfight Sir Kay (if that's your goal), though it might take a while to get there, you will. But if you run into Sir Gawain, the odds should be very good that you will lose. Similarly, while you might be one of the promising knights who may accomplish Great Deeds, there are other such knights. Some of them will beat you. This is a good thing. You are not the destined chosen handpicked champions of Gawd. In some campaigns you might be. This is a good thing. But saying that all PCs at all times should be able to comfortably face NPCs of their level and rarely be overshadowed by higher level NPCs is bad setting design.

I'd elaborate on that, but I'd need an example setting to detail an example on. How familiar are you with Lord of the Rings? Or Star Wars (Rebellion era)?

Those are two I feel reasonably confident I could give a reasonably good example of how special I think the PCs should be, but where that stops, as well.

So is your sir Gawain point that a player shouldn't be able to beat a much higher level NPC (which I agree with as an obvious supposition) or that they shouldn't be able to beat him because he is supposed to be the toughest person in the gameworld and therefore no other character can ever be his match?

As for SW, I don't see what in these would support players not being the stars. All of the characters are highly versatile ass-kickers who are fit the all in one adventurer template. Sure Luke's got a few extra tricks but but all the rest are general multi-skilled PCs who are equiped to adequately deal with a variety of situations.

LOTR is  not a great example of what a party should be like. Good book, badly balanced party.  But if you look at Gimli, Aragon and Legolas, they are ass kicking heroes who are obviously the stars of the story.

Let me perhaps clarify my position. PCs and their classes should be highly flexible,  more so than most people in the game world, because they are the stars of the story you are telling. I never said they should show up all NPCs, I don't expect L1 characters to confront a L20 character, but then, and L20 npc shouldn't be talking to an L1 character.
 
Your suggestion to make classes differentiations between light and heavy cavalry is way too specialized and boring for player roles. Heck even cavalry is to specialized. What the heck does he do when it gets to infiltrating the castle, put pillows on the horse's feet?

PCs need to have something worthwhile to do in any situation the group my encounter. To do otherwise is to unfairly sideline a player who is there to play D&D, not just sit and watch.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #81 on: November 02, 2008, 01:50:38 PM »
1) Peter/Chris = P&C = PC and Dave or Mike = D&M = DM. Me feeling witty in a bizzare way. Don't read anything into it.

Only if you're determined to have the only roles that determine what happens and what influences the story and whether or not the PCs succeed or fail be PC roles.

Gandalf doesn't make the rest of the Fellowship useless at all at any point. Certainly, Gandalf, if he used his full power, would be stronger than the others, but it is not probable that even if he could/would, that he would make the others useless.

The point is that the PCs are among the people who can kick ass and take names. They are not the only ones who do so and they are not the only people who are interesting.

2) Try not to assume I'm insisting you're compensating for something. It was stated as a "Either: 1) You're missing (see what I said in 1) or 2." Could it have been clearer? Ja. Is it an insult? No. My appologies if it came off as one.

3) Both. Sir Gawain is stronger than "better than average". Sir Gawain is quite a lot stronger than "better than average". Doesn't mean that he has a shield of invulnerability, but being his equal, let alone his superior, would take the PCs being the same...which is not a given. At all.

As for Star Wars and LotR:

The PCs ought to be people capable of something like oh, and I'm using this as an example of competence, Faramir's rangers. Their contributions are certainly valuable and there aren't many who are their equals or superiors, but they're not the best and they're not the only stars. If you play in the Rebellion, Luke is likely to be the guy who gets the Death Star. You are not likely to be Force sensitive.

On the other hand, you are likely to be one of those people who the Imperials really wish would be dead already, and you are not merely one of the nameless multitude. But when telling what Luke did (which is what inserting the PCs directly in movie events would be), Luke will get more of the glamorous scenes.

And in terms of the Rebellion overall, it is likely that more of the New Republic will recognize the name Luke Skywalker than PC name *here*. You'll be one of the gallant captains/colonels/generals/whatever who the Republic is deeply grateful for (or not, but that's a different problem). You'll be responsible for keeping some devilry by the Empire that we don't know about in a movie focused on Luke+Leia+Han from wreaking havoc. The sky is the damn limit.

But you are not going to be the greatest Jedi ever (that role is taken), the greatest shot in the galaxy (tough competition there, though if you win in a shooting contest with Han I won't mind at all.), or something like that.

PCs are special. So are SEALS. PCs-as-the-only-characters-whose-actions-matter makes everyone else's actions irrelevant. This is a bad thing. When/if you're working with Han Solo, expect Han to be capable of kicking tail and impressing you. If you're not very experienced yet, he may be able to overshadow you.

As for PCs and encounters: I could, give some time and an idea of what exactly one wanted to represent, make a perfectly valid "Cavalryman" PC. Hell, even light or heavy. Will that character always have something to do? No. Tough SHIT. There are times in which being a great pilot is simply not relevant. It does not help. Players need to deal with that.

Now, I don't think characters should be made so that their only skills are "do painful things on horseback". That would be too limited.

But having a character who fights primarily on horseback, who is very experienced with sword, spear, and horsebow and proficient but no more than that unarmed, who can sneak about (but not very well, which may be very important) and who can spot those sneaking about (but not as well as someone dedicated to it), is a perfectly fine role.

If you're playing a cavalryman, you don't go into things that require the skills of a ninja. And if you do run into those things despite your intentions, then you're unprepared to deal with them.

Waaa, poor Cavalryman.

So, if anyone is interested in my sketch of "Cavalryman" as to what he'd be able to do (or not), I'll post it. Specific numbers not included, but I can give a general idea of what I'd write up for a horse-using Armsman without much trouble, including what areas he can't contribute much at but isn't so incompetent as to hurt the party (most of the time.).

As for ground up and role protection and so on: Here's my goal.

Each class has some situations where it pwns at. You want to have a rock to handle scissors situations. Rocks PWN scissors situations.

Each class has some areas it can handle proficiently. It won't win if it has to rely on that, but that's okay, the PCs are a group and this level of proficiency is good enough, particularly if someone else is pwning these situations, to help out and make things easier.

Each class has some areas that it does with a medicore level of ability. It isn't inept...a thundering cavalryman isn't actively antistealthy, but he has about the basic proficiency level and isn't likely to improve that much. Nor will he need to.

Each class has some areas it doesn't know what to do at. A knifeman in a contest involving long ranged sniping is going to feel out of place. He should! This is the area that someone else pwns HIM. Ideally, he'll have something to do to justify his existance, but he does not have much to do.

Action heroes can get away with having skills everywhere, because Bond, for instance, relies on his personal ability to succeed. If a team was doing the things Bond did, not all of them would be as good as he is at all things. It wouldn't be necessary.

Most (80%-90%) things a character does, he should be medicore or better at. And for the record, I'm using medicore to mean the low side of average. This includes the very good when calculating "average", so versus ordinary situations, even a cavalryman may be able to be stealthy enough, but you wouldn't want to stake lives on it.

As for levels: Sometimes you'll be in a situation where Aragorn is present. Aragorn will have more impact, roll per roll, on the battle of Helm's Deep than you. If you're reasonably skilled (and not novices...and frankly if you agree to start as a novice you're agreeing to accept this), your contributions will not be irrelevant, but you won't kill as many orcs as Legolas and you will probably have a smaller part in the Saga. But you will have a part. You will be able to say that if you and thirty others hadn't bought time for the King to fall back, who knows what would have happened.

So maybe it wasn't so small a part.

But having the Big NPCs sit back and let the PCs solve the situation despite the fact that the NPCs by all rights would be more able to do so, and have both the time and inclination to act, is absurd.

To use the Fellowship, there's a reason that the hobbits go. And I don't think it was Tolkien preaching how power is a bad thing.

Who really accomplishes more? Aragorn? Or Samwise?

In the end, that's a valid question, even if Aragorn is more obviously badass and probably kills more orcs, Sam is as fully able as anyone could be for what he has to do.

I wouldn't want to cover the Fellowship with people who wanted to be doing something right now with that mentality, but you could tell the Return of the King with both looking quite good.

Going back to a role: Quoting Frank (and if you disagree with him this strongly, our ideas on how to rewrite the game are too distant for us to work on the same project)

"...a party with diverse abilities has a rotating star in different battles and generally wins even though specific characters would get schooled by some of the monsters they face in a cage match."

Brutes - different from Warriors, in that they have attacks and numerical bonuses larger than warriors can. And nothing else. These are the Giant Spiders of the world, and they automatically win a pissing contest and automatically lose tic tac toe.

Magic Warriors - not really spellcasters, usually because they only have a trick or two, and no sleaves. These guys punch pretty hard, and have a secondary arsenal of (usually) spell-like abilities instead of having Warrior skills and/or equipment.

Puzzle Monsters - like the Golem, the Spectre, or the Black Pudding. These creatures are invulnerable to large varieties of attack forms, and require specialized techniques to combat. In reference to their limitations, they usually kind of suck, but their limited vulnerabilities make them walk all over many player characters (and completely unplayable as player characters).

Traps - Whether it's the CR 10 vorpal guillotine or the Assassin Vine, these challenges may or may not even be creatures. They can be quite deadly, but usually must rely upon the player characters to fail a search check or be in a hurry before they can even trigger.

And then, of course there's monsters which actually are Warriors (Giants), Spellcasters (Mind Flayers), or Rogues (Dark Ones).

A Fighter ought to be able to beat some of those handly, struggle against a couple, and lose against a couple. A Wizard will beat/draw/lose against a different set. A rogue will win/draw/lose against a different set. A cleric will win/draw/lose against a different set.

K:
RPS seems to me to be bad model. Rather than have one star per combat, an ensemble cast approach means that everyone has fun during a combat rather than have two thirds of a miserable party. I feel like a cheater when I "win" and encounter alone, and I'm sure the party thinks the same.

The last time I fought an Animated Object I was a rogue. While I couldn't get past its DR, my party and I kept the monster prone with Trip attacks and blinded while the Barb Power Attacked past the monster's DR. We were useful during the combat and we all felt like stars. 


Frank: Actually, that animated object encounter fit perfectly into the RPS model. Remember, the Barbarian probably could have beaten that thing alone, but with everyone else busily aiding him, it became extremely one-sided.

That's what the RPS model is supposed to look like - in the battles where one character is dominant and the other characters are at a disadvantage, the other characters aid the dominant character. Essentially the "star role" goes round and round, and the rest of the party are "supporting cast" - they don't sit out the encounter altogether.

Bolding is mine.

Appologies for the very long post, but please read in full. If I can find a way to shorten it, I will, but I'm trying to cover several statements.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #82 on: November 02, 2008, 02:57:42 PM »
Frank seems to be contradicting himself, and you seem to just want to build the game that Frank wants to build. I'm already pretty sure I don't have the same ideas as you (Frank) do about how to design a proper game. I'm just trying to help you out however I can, because... I'm a helpful kinda guy. I mean... you're using nothing but Frank's philosophies here. Why aren't you designing a game with him? (I've read the Brutes/Puzzle Monsters/Etc stuff, I read the whole conversation between those two.)

Why do I say Frank seems to be contradicting himself? He hates role protection, but that's exactly what RPS is. Rock is a fucking role, end of story. But guess what? I hate role protection too! So I don't think using RPS as a means of separating character classes into roles and then creating monsters around the same concept is a good idea. That's EXACTLY what 4th Edition did. I don't like that about 4th Edition, and I'm pretty sure neither does Frank.

As for all of this, "Well, if we ran a Lord of the Rings game Aragorn would be totally more badass than you EVAR," shit: you are completely missing the point. I want to say that most gamers don't run Middle Earth games. Anytime I've played Star Wars we didn't in a time far far removed from any of the Luke Skywalker bullshit. Because if the NPCs can save the world without the need for PCs, there's no fucking need to have PCs there. How fun is it really if you spend a few hours each night playing third string for the JV football team where nobody remembers your fucking name? Oh, but if you hadn't tackled that one wide receiver the game might have been a tie? I mean, we don't know for you, but... you sure did something, kid! Congratulations! ...Are you serious? (This is my analogy to your Helm's Deep scenario for your PCs by the way, I think it's pretty apt.)

PCs are special, like you said. So are SEALS. In a game where Navy SEALS are one of the most badass things in the world, the PCs should probably be Navy fucking SEALS. And they shouldn't be maggots swabbing the brig while the real heroes save the day either. Marginalizing the worth of the PCs is not fun for the Players. A game is designed to be fun for the players - not just the designer, not just the DM. People who aren't important to the story are NPCs. This doesn't mean that they blow. Tom Bombadil would like a few words with you if you think that. People who are important to the story are PCs, including DMPCs. If Sir Gawain is totally badass and awesome, and we're playing in Camelot, the PCs need to be just as important to the story as Gawain. This doesn't at all mean that the PCs need to be other Knights of the Round Table, or Merlin, or Modred, or Queen Mabd, or anything of the sort. What it means is, when Gawain is called on a great important mission, he brings the PCs along, because he needs their help, and they get to share the glory, and the torture and the triumph with him. Gawain here is a DMPC, not an NPC, and he works with the PCs, not completely separate from them accomplishing utterly more lofty deeds. You don't make a fun game by constantly reminding the players how unnecessary they really are by showing them that the fake made-up characters, NPCs, are the ones that are really doing anything of merit.

It almost sounds like you want the opposite of what I want to be true. "Sir Gawain is so badass he gets to go off on lofty adventures all alone and he always comes out on top but that's how smexysweet he is!" At the same time you want PC classes to focus their efforts narrowly and have to coordinate themselves with a Rock-Paper-Scissors squadron to have any chance whatsoever of completing their missions alive, or with any sort of proficiency.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #83 on: November 02, 2008, 03:15:02 PM »
I'm going to preface this by saying that if any of this post is not completely clear, to ask for me to clarify.

Don't assume "he probably means this" if you're not certain. I really, really want to ensure what I mean gets across (whether you agree with it is entirely up to you).

Okay.

Helm's Deep: No, it isn't.

The PCs at Helm's Deep would be like oh, Gamling. Or hell, Theoden himself. Or Eomer. Very valuable, very effective...but not necessarily the best and brightest and faster and toughest and so on. We don't hear in detail what the Rohirrim did at the battle of the Pelenor Fields, and it would be very easy for the PCs to play a big part in the Rohirrim pulling off what they did (which the movie does not do justice to). They'd be lieutenants to the king (or Eomer), perhaps, but they'd be trusted lieutenants, given a great deal of responsibility and given a generous hunk of the credit in the tales of the Eorlingas, but Frodo hasn't heard of them and isn't all that likely to. Their paths never cross.

Quote
You don't make a fun game by constantly reminding the players how unnecessary they really are by showing them that the fake made-up characters, NPCs, are the ones that are really doing anything of merit.
Not my goal. Nor are the PCs somehow not fake made-up characters (unless I totally misunderstand what you mean by that phrase).

Sometimes, Gawain will save the day. Sometimes, the PCs will. Sometimes, the PCs and Gawain will save the day.

[spoiler] Sometimes the heroes will lose, but that's another problem...more one of how good the other side is than of the PCs or Gawain and how they relate to each other. [/spoiler]

The PCs are among those who can make a difference, but that doesn't mean that they are the individuals at any given time who do. Despite their best efforts, someone else might shoot down the Red Baron. Certainly not for lack of trying and hopefully not for lack of ability on the part of the PCs!

Gawain is no more or less subject to the rock-paper-scissors etc...but he's a -very- good rock in a situation where few people are paper, so PCs are "merely" not as good at being rocks. One reason Camelot is not an ideal adventure setting in terms of balancing different classes...there really aren't an array of "different classes". The main difference between Gawain and Percival is how good they are and their personalities, but not fundementally what they do.

As for Frank: Because I don't agree with his personal ideas. I think his basic design philosophies are valid and sound, but I don't like the idea of an Indian influenced game (it is too contrary to my tastes).

The thing is, if you face nothing but scissors, a PC party dominated by Rockdom will be fine. If you want to be able to face paper, you're going to need scissors.

I'm for seperating things by role so that everyone has the following:

Areas they do well.
Areas they don't do well but don't do poorly.
Areas they do poorly or not at all.

A Cossack is simply not going to be very useful (or very interested in!) a sea adventure. Similarly, a Mariner on the Great Steppes is a fish out of water.
In brief, PCs are a part of the world they live in and have to deal with the limitations, benefits, and other conditions of it. James Bond can get away with being the best guy ever. A PC in a group game has to share that with the other PCs, which means that an individual PC is not always going to be at his best in any scenario.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 03:18:38 PM by Elennsar »
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #84 on: November 02, 2008, 04:34:37 PM »
Quote from: Elennsar
Sometimes you'll be in a situation where Aragorn is present. Aragorn will have more impact, roll per roll, on the battle of Helm's Deep than you. If you're reasonably skilled (and not novices...and frankly if you agree to start as a novice you're agreeing to accept this), your contributions will not be irrelevant, but you won't kill as many orcs as Legolas and you will probably have a smaller part in the Saga. But you will have a part. You will be able to say that if you and thirty others hadn't bought time for the King to fall back, who knows what would have happened.

The PCs at Helm's Deep would be like oh, Gamling. Or hell, Theoden himself. Or Eomer. Very valuable, very effective...but not necessarily the best and brightest and faster and toughest and so on. We don't hear in detail what the Rohirrim did at the battle of the Pelenor Fields, and it would be very easy for the PCs to play a big part in the Rohirrim pulling off what they did (which the movie does not do justice to). They'd be lieutenants to the king (or Eomer), perhaps, but they'd be trusted lieutenants, given a great deal of responsibility and given a generous hunk of the credit in the tales of the Eorlingas, but Frodo hasn't heard of them and isn't all that likely to. Their paths never cross.

Okay, okay, the second one makes sense, but you'll see that my reply was to the first one, where it very much sounded like you were referring to the PCs as four among thirty random warriors that did something that may or may not have even had an impact on anything. Let me go one step further though: Do the deeds of Eomer or Theoden even matter in the long run? Isn't it entirely conceivable that had Eomer and Eowyn and Merry and Pippin and Theoden had ALL died, that Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and of course Gandalf would still be badass enough to have broken the siege of Minas Tirith alone? This is sort of the problem I run into. You don't want the PCs to ever feel like something they did might as well have been accomplished by someone else, who is obviously more capable and would have gotten around to it at some time.

And I really am not going to stop hammering this point until it gets somewhere: 4E does the exact same thing you are aiming to do. Do you like that about 4E? If so, why aren't you just playing 4E? If not, how would you do it differently/better?

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #85 on: November 02, 2008, 04:47:56 PM »
Yeah, that's not what I meant. I meant that you and thirty others (assuming four PCs in this group, twenty six of those guys are NPCs) who did something. I named Gamling in the second example because I don't know Old English well enough to come up with names for the Royal Guards refered to in the first example.

But they kicked tail. They did make a difference. Just not as obvious or as big a difference.

And yeah, you want the PCs to feel that their efforts played a role. Doesn't have to be HUGE, but you should never feel that Gandalf could have done it if he'd thought of it (unless there's a reason to suspect he wouldn't have. Just because he's stronger/wiser/smarter doesn't mean he's at the right place at the right time, so even Gandalf as a party NPC isn't necessarily a bad thing.)

What I mind is "the PCs feel they contributed" morphing into "the PCs feel they saved the goddamn day. Weren't for the PCs, the city would be DOOMED."

That's not appealing. Now, its not exactly appealing for an NPC to get that role either, but part of that is that "without ____, we'd be lost." isn't appealing to me. At least not for a game with multiple people. Maybe in a game where its my PC as the champion of Neverwinter (After being the one who did succeed) etc, but in a game where it ought to be perfectly possible that someone else will beat me to it, they ought to have a fair chance, whether they're a NPC or not. As stated somewhere (not sure where), my goal is to play an interesting person doing interesting things. Being a valued sidekick is cooler than being a bleh hero. The idea that "Sidekick" equals "does nothing useful" is a sign someone can't write for shit. Heroes have sidekicks because they need the backup.

As for 4e: It really doesn't sound like the classes are all that well designed, which means I'd be basically rebuilding anyway. It also overly simplifies monsters, has horribly disassociated mechanics, eliminates a lot of noncombat stuff, and generally doesn't improve upon the game.

Saying I should play 4e because it has limited classes (and I want limited classes) is like saying that I should play WoW because it has paladins as holy knights.

It may be true, but its missing all the other reasons I don't want to play.

So. Enough about 4e. I already own/have access to 3e material. I do not desire to either waste money or hard drive space on 4e material unless it is enough better than what I can come up with on my own (including with help) to justify the investment.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #86 on: November 02, 2008, 05:10:30 PM »
You missed the point. I assumed you didn't like 4E, as I do not like 4E, since you are not playing it. Ergo, I want to hear your ideas on how you are going to do the whole RPS, role enforcement thing better than 4E. And no, saying you should play it because it has limited classes is not like saying you should play WoW because it has paladins. One of those is an inherent design principle which influences the rest of the game, one of those is a construct frill added on to inherent design. I trust you understand the difference. And even further, 4E assumes that there are Rock, or Paper, or Scissors challenges, that only Paper, or Scissors, or Rock PCs can overcome with any regularity. So there, 4E has two inherent design principles in common with your goal. Much closer than 3e is.

I actually kinda suggest that you do get the books through whatever means you deem necessary, just because I think you would benefit from some of the design principles therein. The game enforces role, and creates a level of tactical intra-party cooperation heretofore unheard of in DnD. The biggest complaint I have, and many other share, is that everything is just about damage and in the end everyone feels the same. This is really just a problem with the designers being too dull and chickenshit to create actually different powers for different roles, not a problem with the game system itself.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #87 on: November 02, 2008, 05:13:58 PM »
Yes, it is. Its taking a piece of what I like and assuming that a game sharing that element is close enough to warrant playing because of that element. Beyond that, very different, but that's what I meant by saying the two are alike. Just because I like elves doesn't mean a game that does elves in an awesome way is an appealing game.

As for the dull and chickenshit: If we're that throughly rewriting classes, I don't see the point of getting the books, just because they're using roles in a similar sort of way. I really don't.

Doesn't help that "Defender" sounds like a role of suck (I can't tell if that's a failure of it as a role or a failure of WotC's writing, but it isn't one of the roles I want because of my suspicions from reading that it is the former, aggravated by the latter.)
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #88 on: November 02, 2008, 05:26:58 PM »
As for the dull and chickenshit: If we're that throughly rewriting classes, I don't see the point of getting the books, just because they're using roles in a similar sort of way. I really don't.

Doesn't help that "Defender" sounds like a role of suck (I can't tell if that's a failure of it as a role or a failure of WotC's writing, but it isn't one of the roles I want because of my suspicions from reading that it is the former, aggravated by the latter.)

The books really don't take up that much HD space. Come on. And, no Defender isn't a role of suck. Not any more so than any other role. There is no role which is "better" than any other. This might be arguable with the different classes, but no the roles all contribute equally to encounters. The Defender controls enemies on a rather personal and limited scale, is really fucking tough, and can beat the shit out of stuff. The Striker isn't quite so tough, and doesn't really control anything, but it is very difficult itself to control, is very maneuverable, and can beat the shit out of stuff. The Leader... is really the meh role in my opinion. It is kinda tough, can sometimes kinda control, doesn't really beat the shit out of stuff (but a little better than the controller), but it's the only thing that can heal at all, or buff that well. The Controller isn't at all tough, controls things on a large and ranged scale, but doesn't really do a lot of damage. So there you go, that's how the roles pan out.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #89 on: November 02, 2008, 05:28:23 PM »
In theory, yes. In practice, you tell me how a Controler doesn't handle the tactical function of a Defender better, or how well the Defender class/es actually Defend.

Less 4e, more reworking 3.5.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #90 on: November 02, 2008, 05:46:32 PM »
In theory, yes. In practice, you tell me how a Controler doesn't handle the tactical function of a Defender better, or how well the Defender class/es actually Defend.

Well, considering I've played the game, I can tell you how, in practice, they are different while still doing something similar. 1) The controller isn't really that tough, so if he gets killed he can't do any defending (controlling). 2) The controller doesn't do that much damage so he also can't be "a good offense is a good defense" kind of guy either. In the end, the Defender is the one making sure that the other people aren't getting killed. He takes the hits that the other guys can't take. The controller doesn't control things better than the Defender, it just does so on a larger scale, so it can't just make things not able to kill him. That's why the Defender is there.

Quote
Less 4e, more reworking 3.5.

I think you assume that since I'm talking about 4e I obviously love it. I've played it, I didn't like it, I went back to 3.5 with which I've always had a good time. Do I houserule in 4e stuff because its WTFawesome? No. I don't like 4e. But I'm saying, 4e does some of the stuff you want to do, so there's no reason you should just ignore it when 3.5 seems to do NONE of the things you want to do. You don't like hitpoints, you don't like how the classes are balanced, you don't like how the classes even work, you don't like the monsters, you don't like the attributes. Do you like 3e? Honestly, most of the time it doesn't even seem like you like DnD on the whole. Why don't you go out and see what other systems are like and come back with ideas of your own instead of just using Frank's ideas? I think you could get a lot of ideas from 4E, and True20, Exalted, or even Star Wars SAGA, or d20 Modern. Do you know how GURPS or Marvel RPG work? I've personally been trying to get ahold of a Cthulhu d20 game to read up on their sanity mechanics, but with no luck.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #91 on: November 02, 2008, 06:01:23 PM »
Point being, unless the defender has some way to make people attack him, having lots of hit points isn't very useful.

Trying not to argue too much here, I'm just pointing out that unless you can force other people to impale themselves on your pike (or whatever), its limited in bad ways.

Point/s acknowledged, however.

Quote
Less 4e, more reworking 3.5.

 
No, no. I'm just tired of having people treat 4e because it has some areas I'd like to use as a game that would be better to base things on than something else. It still does a lot of the things I dislike in D&D. It may do them differently, but it still has characters becoming world dominatingly powerful, for instance.

d20 Modern: Has most of the same problems I have with D&D.
Star Wars SAGA: No idea, but it doesn't sound like it (has stuff I want to use). Maybe some ideas, but not on the whole.
True20: Some ideas, yes. Others, no.
Exalted: Ditto.

No idea on Marvel RPG, but I do know how GURPS works (and I like it in what it does in some ways). It doesn't do the kind of realistic-but-larger-than-life (I'm not sure how to explain that, but it does make sense in my head) fantasy I want and I'm not against classes per se...just D&D's. Or alignment (how D&D does it, yes, alignment in general, no). GURPS lacking those two things is not a selling point to me. Some things about classless and alignmentless are appealing, some are not.

Cthulhu d20: Good luck. No, seriously, it seems to be one of those "pain in the ass to find' things.

As for Frank's ideas: I think Frank has some good (in general) good ideas. I don't like some the things he likes and I don't think the solution to overpowered casters is to make everyone else equally overpowered. I do think the things I've quoted appeal, however.

That is not the game I am looking for. And modifying D&D is modifying a basic system (dice+modifiers vs. number-to-succeed) that I like better than GURPS's "roll under skill" or various dice pool systems. (though Legend of the Five Rings's roll-and-keep is interesting, I don't like it).
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 06:03:38 PM by Elennsar »
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

bkdubs123

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #92 on: November 02, 2008, 06:51:47 PM »
though Legend of the Five Rings's roll-and-keep is interesting, I don't like it.

Ah, sweet, you've reminded me of that one nagging at the back of my mind trying to get me to out there and check it out! Thanks! In general, I'd agree with you that Frank has some great ideas. He's been around game design for a long time, so it also stands to reason. I also agree that it's maybe not the best choice to rebalance everything up to the power of casters (I don't even think he succeeds so, what's the point).

Oh, and the 4e defender does have ways, many in fact, to make people attack him, and to punish them for ignoring him. So yeah.

Marvel works on many of the same principles as GURPS does, but particularly the conflict resolution mechanic is both unique and intriguing. The idea behind the advancement is also intriguing, but very poorly implimented, IMO.

Thanks for the heads up on Cthulhu though. I'll just have to try harder. Know of any other games that do psychological/social warfare type things? I don't even particularly care if they do it well, just want to see what's out there.

I haven't yet played True20, but the way they handle damage is pretty neat, IMO. I need to read up on it in more detail.

Anyway, I'm sorry I am trying to be helpful on the whole, I just don't share your vision, so it is taking me a little while to at the very least understand it. Once I think I've got a good feel for what exactly you want I think I'll be able to help you better.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #93 on: November 03, 2008, 02:01:34 AM »
Afraid not. You might want to try used bookstores with a particularly exhaustive selection. Some carry RPG books.

As for pyschological stuff: Spycraft (d20 product) might be useable, but its expensive and not focused on that. It does have some stuff, if memory serves. (I used to own a copy and got rid of it as too-many-things-to-store. Smaller room now, so less shelf space)

As for being sorry: No need to share my vision to share my project. As long as you're honestly commited to finding out what it is and helping me achieve it (or staying out if you have no desire to do so), someone with a different perspective on the doing-cool-things-and-being-a-cool-person genre is welcome.

There's no one best movie to refer to the represent that, there's several that show it off. Similarly, no current game system necessarily quite matches that.

Ideally, the result of this project will be a set of core mechanics that can be used to represent it regardless of one's personal tastes, and a system for designing things like classes or feats or whatever that is easy and workable.

I do think we have similar enough interests that we'd both like to have that happen. You might want "higher success" than I do, or more abstract vs. more detailed, but the basics of the Genre of Asskicking we may have common ground on.

I'm not sure, but I hope so. Since if not, trying to work together to represent that is going to be difficult, even with good intentions.

Here's to a game that does justice to those people who are brave and good enough to stand where Lawrence of Arabia (to name one of our world's impressive fellows) walked.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

ckafrica

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 24
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #94 on: November 03, 2008, 02:57:53 AM »
My understanding is that Frank and K chose to up everyone to caster level because it was the path of least work. All they had to do was rework some classes and the feat system. Had they tried to tackle the problem the other way -- to bring spellcasters down to everyone else's level -- would have required rewriting thousands of pages of spells to balance their capacity as well as the monsters to reachieve CR balance. That is a hell of a lot more work.


Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #95 on: November 03, 2008, 03:00:29 AM »
As someone who thinks the overwhelming majority of those spells are bad for the kind of game I want to play, "Drop them." is an attractive and easy option.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

ckafrica

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 24
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #96 on: November 03, 2008, 08:36:39 AM »
That still means you have to address the rebalancing of the CR system and high CR monsters in order that they don't don't destroy your new nerfed high level characters.

I agree that high levels do nothing for me either but if you are actually going to rewrite the spells and monsters, you're better off starting the whole thing from the beginning.

Henceforth TNE efforts on TGD

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #97 on: November 03, 2008, 01:35:30 PM »
Not arguing in the least. Since the TNE is not going in a direction that appeals, I'm using it as a look-at-and-study, but I've no more interest in playing it than 3.5 core only.

One thing I would like to note as a personal goal, I do not know if others interested share it or not...

But really high level monsters and similar are more likely to pwn PCs than the other way around. Plain and simple, dragons are tough, even if you are St. George.

But their CR needs to reflect that. Having something at your level means that it should be at your level. Whether or not you will ever be its level is another decision entirely.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

ckafrica

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 24
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #98 on: November 03, 2008, 11:43:33 PM »
It sounds like you don't really want a level system. Because with a level system there is always a point to which a certain kind of encounter is easy. Fantasy GURPS, for example, Dragons are always a challenge unless you introduce super powers into the game. They are just that tough. On the flip side though, no one fights dragons in GURPS because they are pretty much guaranteed TPK.

Balance, ultimately, is the toughest part of the game.

I think Frank got it right when he said the system has to reflect the game world you want to exist as the system are equivalent to the laws of physics.

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=31521 this might be helpful

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: [System Altering] Classes, borrowing from Frank Trollman (and others)
« Reply #99 on: November 03, 2008, 11:45:46 PM »
I don't really want "you can reach any level in the game if you play long enough" system.

If "humans and similar beings" NEVER can reach over level 10, or 20, or 30, or whatever, you can keep some things forever in the realm of "always a challenge".

Even a TPK challenge.

And yes, it is helpful. If I had a more specific idea of exactly what I wanted to do, I'd run it through there.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.