PDA

View Full Version : D20 Heresy and then some


RPGnet Columns
05-01-2005, 05:52 PM
Post originally by Spike at 2005-05-01 16:52:31
Converted from Phorums BB System

I know that this goes against the idea of D&D all the way back to the beginning, but I can't stand my character being bound by a Level, to express what he can and cannot do. It is completely artificial (insamuch as we are talking fantasy... I know) and exceptionally hard to translate into 'real world' myth figures, or even movie characters. Classes are almost as bad, more due to the restrictions that they (again) artificially enforce. I love 3.5E as far as it goes, I refused to touch D&D for ten years, before players options came out and then some, and only relaxed my stance because 3e was at least playable. IMO it is still horribly broken in many ways. (Levels, classes, kill for xp, abstract HP, and easily fixed but for some reason left in, Str to hit people. C'mon, this last one goes against every tradition of the big strong guy that has to get pounded on for a while, until he can end the fight with one mighty blow (one he couldn't land before because he was so slow... in case you missed it))
Let me illustrate my point about classes with my favorite (and a staple in EVERY group) the fighter. The fighter has THE worst skill points of any class. Period. Even the uneducated Barbarian gets more (given an Int of 10 for each, twice as many), of course, this is partly because the fighter has the smallest selection of skills. In 3e he had NO social skills whatsoever. Not even Intimidate. So, in essesence the one thing that gets players of fighters looked down upon (they don't really play unless there is a fight...) is reinforced by the fact that the player really can't do ANYTHING outside of fighting. ???. In fact, the fighter is missing some very basic skills that by all means BELONG in the class. For example, every D20 fighter is essentially oblivious to their surroundings. They can't spot, listen or search. Now you know something is wrong, because it's fighters that man the watches, go on patrols, track down the heros for the villian. (Look sir, Droids!) True, fiction tends to have these unfortunates die horribly at the hands of sneaky characters, suggesting that mayby they aren't really good at it. But then, those are NPC's that probably lack a PC class level at all. And no, it is neither game balance (in which case wizards would have NO skill points. C'mon, do they really need skills, they can use Wish Spells. Think about it.) nor fictionally accurate. To illustrate, Arnold,in Red Sonja, is pretty much a fighter, yeah, Okay, he could have some rouge levels, but then his BAB would drop until he couldn't match Sonja in a fight... Multiclassing a fictional charcter for skill points doesn't make a strong counterargument. Anyway, back to what he does in the movie, namely (and many, many fictional fighters do this) he hears badguys trying to ambush him. Anyone who puts their life on the line tends to develope a keen alertness for their surroundings.
Okay, you say, we'll give fighters some more skills and some more skill points. That will fix it.
Wrong. It shouldn't need fixing, because my concept of the character as a great fighter shouldn't need to bow to your preconceived notions of what a fighter is (especially when considering the raw freedom a fighter has to develop his own way, a la feat selection. Arguably the only other class with this freedom is the rouge.

Solution? Within a level based system, have a given 'level' be a class package, complete with Bab, saves, Hp(ugh), and skill points, skills could be far more open. Who is to say my fighter didn't have an apprenticeship with an alchemist. (in fact I once had a fighter interested in anatomy, that carried a disection kit with him...)
I guess what I'm describing is not unlike M&M, except that it is designed to be used on a level by level basis. Each player gets X number of points each level to spend on things we all consider class and level specific abilities. Of each catagory has a minimum default (say, D4 hit die, 0 points) and if you don't buy that level you are stuck, no making it up later. Now this pool of points also buy your feats (all class abilities translate roughly, or not so roughly into feats) and also any spell casting abilities. Without changing the magic rules, for the moment, What I mean to say is you buy +1 level of spell casting, by list. Meaning you could have someone (in theory) who is progressing on two spell lists simultaniously, though at the expense of EVERYTHING else. (minimal skill points, hit points, saves, feats, everything...) or you could have a paladin who is casting spells at first level, but can't turn the undead. Something. Personally, I have few real problems with the task(combat) resolution. Those I do have are more of tweaks rather than overhauls.

Now, how to do this without levels. Simple really. What we did before was take multiclassing to a whole new level, opening it wide, wide, wide. What I intend for levels is much simpler, and much harder at the same time. Essentially, you buy levels with xp, in the current system. Now, instead of earning a pool of points every so often, you buy points directly with XP. With me?
So, Joe, our formerly first level fighter, who is now a no level guy who is pretty tough and good with a sword, has 1000 xp, which he spend (and this is, by the way, extremely notional value wise) 400 points to increase his BAB, 300 to buy a D10 worth of HP(plus Con) and the remaining 300 he uses to buy some skill points and a feat. To keep this in line with the somewhat natural slowdown of progress, and to reflect the rule of diminishing returns, the required cost doubles at each level. Thus it is far easier for a really good fighter to add just a touch of magic to his repitoir than it is for him to increase his ability as a fighter. This is natural, I am very good at my job, enough so that it is hard for me to improve any, but throw me into a new job, and I master the basics within a few days, to a few weeks, depending on the complexity of the tasks involved.
Real life, people.
Other more minor changes are basically steals from other D20 projects, like armor as Damage reduction, Defensive bonusus, Wound points (two tiered HP, basically), how weapons are handled. Action dice. Like I said, tweaks and steals more than rewrites.
Man, I feel guilty. I've done about 90% of the work in designed 3.5E (if they hadn't stolen the name), all that's left is to write it up in a book and publish it. And it was almost off the top of my head. Of course, I know no D&D fans would ever, and I mean ever, give up Levels or Classes, or else they'd be playing one of those Other Games.

I welcome responses of more than one line, good or bad.

RPGnet Columns
05-02-2005, 08:30 AM
Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-05-02 07:30:13
Converted from Phorums BB System

I can understand your desire to eliminate the artificial constraints of class. I've thought about doing that myself, but the math gets pretty involved.

I think levels could still workin D&D 4th edition, but with even more of the restrictions and structures lessened. Classes do give an nice hook to get started with a new character, however.

Charlie

RPGnet Columns
05-02-2005, 09:47 AM
Post originally by Spike at 2005-05-02 08:47:45
Converted from Phorums BB System

True, classes do make it very easy to get started. But I think in that regard, Shadowrun did an excellent job, as the Archetypes were essentially classes, but were completely unnecessary for character creation. In nearly the same genre, Cyberpunk 2020 is interesting for it's Roles, which served the same purpose, but only had one thing (a unique skill) that set them truly apart from eachother. So, I do agree that classes can be useful.
Levels I'd be willing to fight to the bitter end. Almost. They are useful in a limited sense, easy to understand, to track and control level of ability, which makes them useful for video games. On the other hand, however, they suck for a game that is at least notionally meant to convey heroes in a 'story'. Where is the concept of the 'talented new guy', in other words an inexpirenced hero who is very (or even very very) good at what he does, but keeps getting tripped up by his inexpirence. In a level game, inexpirenced means, level one, you suck. Period. Level 20 and you are a total badass, period.
You gotta KNOW the concept is artificial when you see gamers watch a movie trying to guess what level a character is based off of how many attacks he made that round, or how many hits he's taken.

But so many people consider D&D to be levels and classes. I don't, I take into account the history and unique flavor of D&D settings, and of course, more than a few rule concepts that work well. You could argue that it isn't D&D without a division between divine and arcane magic, possibly, or that dwarves must have beards, and prefer axes to swords, that elves can breed with humans. That dragons are intelligent and divided between good and evil (Metallic and Chromatic). No one thing is central to D&D, any one of these things can change, and many of them just might before the day is done. I argue that specific rules are far less important than the vast collection of genre-isms that make up a collective whole. Personally I don't mind the D20, or any of the other polygon randomizers we use. I just get tired of beating my head against the character creation process to come up with something that fits a concept more than an inaccurate stereotype. (again, fighters. Many of history's dedicated warriors, people who lived for battle rather than just simple soldiers, the elite of the breed, were highly intelligent and skilled in a variety of ways. How does that match up with two skill points a level and a skill list that doesn't even match what a five year old could learn?)

Actually, I think the math could be pretty simple. True, I'm pretty good at it, so I may be biased, but most of the math would be done before the DM and the players ever bought the book. The really hard work would actually be converting all the monsters to fit the rule changes. Which is why I don't use damage reductions and defensive bonuses in my games, I tried, but the monsters were never balanced after that, and I'm too lazy to rewrite the whole book for free.
Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking too it.

Charlie Dunwoody wrote:
-------------------------------
I can understand your desire to eliminate the artificial constraints of class. I've thought about doing that myself, but the math gets pretty involved.

I think levels could still workin D&D 4th edition, but with even more of the restrictions and structures lessened. Classes do give an nice hook to get started with a new character, however.

Charlie

RPGnet Columns
05-03-2005, 10:18 AM
Post originally by Spike at 2005-05-03 09:18:46
Converted from Phorums BB System

Man, I do go on, don't I. Short and sweet needs to be my motto unless I intend to do columns.

RPGnet Columns
05-11-2005, 09:38 AM
Post originally by Dinofreak2000 at 2005-05-11 08:38:51
Converted from Phorums BB System

i like your ideas and for those same resons i quit the d20 circle all together. then something strange happened, d20 BESM.

i don'tr play it (i love GURPS i admit) but the manner it is set up in allows what you are thinknig of very easily... but more like how to create the classes you like, (instead of being limited to the selection we print for you) and how you like them.

it has a break down in points and such of how different things balance each other. you might think about looking into it

RPGnet Columns
05-11-2005, 01:07 PM
Post originally by Spike at 2005-05-11 12:07:59
Converted from Phorums BB System

I might just look into that. I am familiar with BESM and the tri-stat system, and I sort of kinda in a way like it, it's fun for quicky games anyway. It probably would have been a better buy than Everstone, which is a poorly executed example of half my ideas. I actually got the idea for the spending Xp for abilities from some old game I bought in the mid eighties. Just another D&D rip-off but it had some useful inovations. I can't remember the game, just that it had a black cover with a penticle on the cover (which is why I got rid of it, this was during the height of the D&D is evil era).

RPGnet Columns
05-12-2005, 06:19 PM
Post originally by Wormwood at 2005-05-12 17:19:48
Converted from Phorums BB System

Spike, I think your criticism is right on. 3rd Edition was nice change, but still too restrictive in my mind. Anyway, you might want to take a look at the OGL d20 conversion for the game Godlike. I believe it was written up by one of the fellows who worked on the Godlike rpg. It eliminates classes and levels (mostly) and makes use of a xp based point-buy system very similar to the one you described.

I haven't had the chance to playtest it yet, but at some point I'm going to sit down and throw together a gritty wild-west/dark fantasy setting to give it a go in. I think the rules for superpowers might make for good low-fantasy magic.

So yeah, check it out at: http://www.arcdream.com/godlike/resources/misc.htm

or grab the pdf directly from:
http://www.arcdream.com/pdf/GodlikeOpenSource.pdf

Take care,
Wormwood

RPGnet Columns
05-12-2005, 09:04 PM
Post originally by order99 at 2005-05-12 20:04:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

If you want to see a really good D20 game,with most of what you just described,try Ebat for a copy of the OOP Wasteworld RPG by Bill King.You'll be amazed at the design...Talislanta 4th ed. is a nice springboard as well,and more fantasy oriented.

RPGnet Columns
05-25-2005, 08:22 PM
Post originally by spike at 2005-05-25 19:22:07
Converted from Phorums BB System

Hmm...
Right now I'm trying to budget, besides the original Talislanta didn't do much for me. Still, it did have xp spending as I recall. But at this point I think I've seen nearly every kind of D20 variant out there, which is funny 'cause I don't really go for it anyway. I'm always on the lookout for new and innovative systems instead. Naturally the newest, innovativist systems I've seen lately don't appeal to me too much, I liked Godlike, except for the system for powers was too... soft I think.

RPGnet Columns
05-26-2005, 04:01 AM
Post originally by The Shizoid Man at 2005-05-26 03:01:08
Converted from Phorums BB System

What you describe has been a staple of the old Midgard/Magira game (ca. 1977) - which coincidentally is very close to D&D3 in task resolution - PCs accumulate XPs of three kinds: combat, magic and general. With the XP of the appropiate kind you can buy improvements. General can be used for any of the two other kinds.

Unnecessary to say that the system is clunky, unwieldy and generally a pain, very much like D&D now and then. But that was the way these days. I remember the joy i felt when i first read RuneQuest II in 1980. I simply would suggest to drop D&D altogether and move on to other shores, it seems to be not quite right for you.

RPGnet Columns
05-26-2005, 12:01 PM
Post originally by spike at 2005-05-26 11:01:59
Converted from Phorums BB System

Thank you for the input. I've never heard of Midgard/Magira, but I'll know to look it up if I stumble across a copy someday.
Actually, I wouldn't bother with D20 and it's varients at all if not for one thing... everyone seems to play them, and few seem to want to move to something different. I sort of go with the crowd, grumbling and cursing the whole way.

RPGnet Columns
09-14-2005, 09:17 AM
Post originally by No2 at 2005-09-14 08:17:38
Converted from Phorums BB System

Try Call of Cthulhu d20.

This might respond to your needs.

RPGnet Columns
09-14-2005, 09:18 AM
Post originally by No2 at 2005-09-14 08:18:50
Converted from Phorums BB System

Or Mutants and Masterminds. Or BESM d20.

RPGnet Columns
09-14-2005, 09:49 AM
Post originally by Spike at 2005-09-14 08:49:58
Converted from Phorums BB System

Wow, this is old. Um...

Let's see, Honestly I don't like the toughness save, and so on. I don't want the baggage of HP Lovecraft when I pull out a book....

Actually, I have numerous games on my shelf I could use, rather than D&D anyway, in addition to it's many variations (true20 is nice...) I was posting in reference to Dunwoody's 4th edition thoughts. No more trying to reinvent the wheel for me, I'll just play other games I like better.... ones without all the level/class/hp crap.

thanks for the thoughts though...

RPGnet Columns
09-14-2005, 02:54 PM
Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-09-14 13:54:55
Converted from Phorums BB System

I went to Gen Con this year and learned at a Wizard of the Coast's seminar that D&D 3.5 is selling well. No 4th edition work has begun and we'll hear about it when it does. Next few years should be 3.5.

So I'll stick with D&D and Spike can stick with a level-less system. We should both be happy that way.

I won't be writing another column on D&D 4.0 for a few years more than likely. My current world building project may take four or five years to finish using 3.5.

Charlie