[D&D] How I learned to stop worrying and love D&D, mk 2 (also, Bariaurs)

[Wood]

Me and AD&D had a wild love affair. It lasted for years. It ended. I cheated on AD&D with Vampire: the Masquerade and it got messy and painful. We split, and I never looked at D&D again. I sold nearly all of my D&D stuff.

I had all these problems with it. Mostly about realism and stuff. I hated levels. I hated racial level limits. I hated racial class limits. I hated levels, mostly. They were unrealistic. They were clunky. They were pointless. They took ages, and you always gave up before you got to the good stuff.

I was missing the point.

Recently, a number of things happened. I bought an old set of 3.0 books for a grand total of three of her majesty's quid. I flipped through them. I started laughing at the Order of the Stick.

But the clincher was for me the I Was a Goblin (http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2004/07/i-was-a-goblin/) articles on Freakytrigger (http://freakytrigger.co.uk/). Particularly this one, about levels (http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2006/07/i-was-a-goblin-on-the-level/).

I'll quote part of it:
Within RPGs, the experience point mechanism was something non-D&D fans tended to point to as being nonsensical and horribly artificial. Many games preferred gradual increments in a character’s skills and abilities, based on training and practise in the game. (The hugely popular Championship Manager series uses this kind of system). Theoretically, I agree, but they missed the core appeal of the XP-level system, which is that the new abilities that suddenly come with a rise in level allow a re-negotiation of playing styles and interactions, and continually renew the game. XP levels create rewarding staging-posts in the play, which may be a less realistic or mature way of gaming, but is often more exciting.

Yes. I get it. I understand. Level rises are power-ups; they allow you re-negotiate playing styles. It's not supposed to be a simulation of anything. It's not supposed to tell a story. It's a game. A game, dammit. And levels are fun. Particularly in the world of 3rd ed. D&D, where the good stuff starts happening sooner.

Which is obvious, really. But it's taken me twenty years to notice it.

So I'll be soon running some D&D (3.0 core, because it's to hand, augmented with bits and bobs from the 3.5SRD and some stuff from the web) for the first time in well over ten years. I even borrowed back my Planescape box set from the chap I sold it to (he's not using it) and I'm using a homebrew based around that, some old Rackham figures I have and some of those lovely dungeon maps from the Wizards website. Wahey!


One question, though, on a Planescape vibe. I clearly remember Bariaurs being half-sheep. But recent product reviews and web stuff describes them as half-goat.

Er, when did they change species?

[Dr. Tran]

Funny, I've never heard bariaurs be refered to as half sheep before They certainly never had any wool that I know of, curly hair on their heads aside. Still, big horn sheep are very similar to bariaurs and I'm pretty sure they still count as goats despite the name so maybe it is just a misunderstanding.

[Keefe the Thief]

I too remember Bariaurs only the Di´Terlizzi way: Goat people all the way. Hmm, i even own Pages of Pain, a somewhat strange but nevertheless fun Planescape Novel - the Bariaur in that who ends up as a page in a mapbook is definitely goat-like.

Oh, and: congratulations. A lot of people never get it. There was a time when i hated levels and stuff like that. Now, i just play what is fun, levels or no levels, HP or no HP. And that analysis is spot on, because i am just creating a level 4 Artificer for my Eberron game. When he gets another level, he will be able to suck the XP out of Items and use them to create new ones. THAT is fun, and it opens up a lot of new ways of play.

[Old Geezer]

It's not supposed to be a simulation of anything. It's not supposed to tell a story. It's a game. A game, dammit. And levels are fun.

Ding! Winner.

[Acrozatarim]

One question, though, on a Planescape vibe. I clearly remember Bariaurs being half-sheep. But recent product reviews and web stuff describes them as half-goat.

Er, when did they change species?

I have an unhealthy need, possibly derived from the place of Planescape as number 1 in my Favourite Settings EVAR (tm) list, to tell you firmly that Bariaur have always been goat-derived in nature, not sheep-derived.

[Lev Lafayette]

Yes. I get it. I understand. Level rises are power-ups; they allow you re-negotiate playing styles. It's not supposed to be a simulation of anything. It's not supposed to tell a story. It's a game. A game, dammit. And levels are fun. Particularly in the world of 3rd ed. D&D, where the good stuff starts happening sooner.


Yes, undoubtably there is a solid gaming orientation in levels. Now the question arises (and this is important in game design) ... is there another method of achieving the same sort of re-negotiation of playing styles, the same sort of rewards etc without offending a sense of realism or imposing artifical limits?

[Harlekin]

Yes, undoubtably there is a solid gaming orientation in levels. Now the question arises (and this is important in game design) ... is there another method of achieving the same sort of re-negotiation of playing styles, the same sort of rewards etc without offending a sense of realism or imposing artifical limits?

I don't think much can be done to avoid offending a sense of realism that wants to be offended. Most modeling of "reality"in games is based on what you (general you, not Lev) think is realistic, and given that most of us have never fought a dragon or cast magic those ideas of realism are on shaky ground. Furthermore, even modern science has only limited knowledge on how "learning" actually works.

[Old Geezer]

Yes, undoubtably there is a solid gaming orientation in levels. Now the question arises (and this is important in game design) ... is there another method of achieving the same sort of re-negotiation of playing styles, the same sort of rewards etc without offending a sense of realism or imposing artifical limits?


Levels do not offend my sense of realism any more than +5 armor, dragons, FTL drive, or lightsabers.

[privateer]

Excellent points all and I agree with you.

The only thing that really gets me is this "builds" jazz. Reminds me too much of wargame army building--and I'm well aware of the wargame/rpg shared heritage.

In earlier D&D, for example, a Paladin got this & that at x level; different or better this & that at x + 1 level, etc. All good in my book.

Now, before anybody even rolls a single die to play with a newly generated character, they've got a more comprehensive career path planned out than most high school seniors in wealthy prep schools do.

Matter of fact, people spend a heckuva lot of time on the net discussing ways to make the best career path choices to eventually become the baddest dude/dudette ever. That makes for more individualized PCs and is a meta-game in itself but it seems to detract from people ever actually playing---or goodness forbid they made a 'bad' choice of feats 3 levels back.

I know that all 5th level barbarians used to look the same but at least people spent time playing instead of plotting out what they'll do at 20th level---other than kicking butt :)

[Ghostwise]

Levels do not offend my sense of realism any more than +5 armor, dragons, FTL drive, or lightsabers.

That's not a fine-grained approach -- suspension of disbelief is not monolithic.

I'm sure many people want to feel how it would be if there REALLY were +5 armours and dragons ; ie they want to combine realism and the fantastic.

But then of course there are a jillions games that may provide what they're after. Feeling offended that D&D is D&D is a bit... pointless, really. Just try other games. :)

[Furcifer]

I totally love levels. I love mechanical progress in characters. When I first made my homebrew, I got rid of levels, instead relying on incremental point buy- but then I realized that it was basically just tinier levels.

[mhacdebhandia]

Before I really read anything:

HELL YES, BARIAURS.

[Old Geezer]

Excellent points all and I agree with you.

The only thing that really gets me is this "builds" jazz. Reminds me too much of wargame army building--and I'm well aware of the wargame/rpg shared heritage.

In earlier D&D, for example, a Paladin got this & that at x level; different or better this & that at x + 1 level, etc. All good in my book.

Now, before anybody even rolls a single die to play with a newly generated character, they've got a more comprehensive career path planned out than most high school seniors in wealthy prep schools do.

Matter of fact, people spend a heckuva lot of time on the net discussing ways to make the best career path choices to eventually become the baddest dude/dudette ever. That makes for more individualized PCs and is a meta-game in itself but it seems to detract from people ever actually playing---or goodness forbid they made a 'bad' choice of feats 3 levels back.

I know that all 5th level barbarians used to look the same but at least people spent time playing instead of plotting out what they'll do at 20th level---other than kicking butt :)

Yes.

What's worse is when they're blathering about what feats they're going to buy in five levels.... at the gaming table. During a battle.

[Afterburner]

...possibly derived from the place of Planescape as number 1 in my Favourite Settings EVAR (tm) list...

My brother!

[riotgearepsilon]

Yes.

What's worse is when they're blathering about what feats they're going to buy in five levels.... at the gaming table. During a battle.

It's more tolerable and interesting when you build it in to your roleplay. My 3e wizard (long since retired) would be poring through and collecting old tomes on magical geometric theory levels and levels before he ever picked up Expand Spell.

[Beri]

I realized a while back that D&D is a board game with a huge number of expansions available, and many built in. Low-level D&D is not remotely the same game as medium-level, and high-level is even more different.

[Wood]

I have an unhealthy need, possibly derived from the place of Planescape as number 1 in my Favourite Settings EVAR (tm) list, to tell you firmly that Bariaur have always been goat-derived in nature, not sheep-derived.So I keep my game stuff in my office, and I work at home. I decide to see what the stuff I recently got back has to say.

From MC8 Outer Planes appendix (I have the binder to hand): "...bariaurs combine the attributes of man and ram rather than those of man and horse. These outer planar creatures have the body of a large and powerful ram." The (Thomas Baxa) illustration is so ram-like it hurts.

In the Player's Guide to the Planes (from the box set) p11: "In appearance, it's a combination of man and ram or woman and ewe. Roughly human sized, it has the body of a large goat and the torso and arms of a human."

Hang on? In one sentence it says they're half sheep and in the very next sentence it says they're in fact goats? Curiouser and curiouser.

Yes, undoubtably there is a solid gaming orientation in levels. Now the question arises (and this is important in game design) ... is there another method of achieving the same sort of re-negotiation of playing styles, the same sort of rewards etc without offending a sense of realism or imposing artifical limits?

But does it matter?

Excellent points all and I agree with you.

The only thing that really gets me is this "builds" jazz. Reminds me too much of wargame army building--and I'm well aware of the wargame/rpg shared heritage.

In earlier D&D, for example, a Paladin got this & that at x level; different or better this & that at x + 1 level, etc. All good in my book.

Now, before anybody even rolls a single die to play with a newly generated character, they've got a more comprehensive career path planned out than most high school seniors in wealthy prep schools do.

I've seen some of that here (although I don't think my players really care about that sort of thing). I have to admit, that doesn't sound like much fun to me, but hey, that's OK. They're having fun and I'm not playing in those games.

[Eclipse of the Dark Sun]

I suspect they were hazy on the differences between goats and sheep. As am I.

http://www.sheep101.info/sheepandgoats.html

[Wood]

I suspect they were hazy on the differences between goats and sheep. As am I.Err?

[Fr. Dougal]No, I'm sorry. I don't follow you[/Fr. Dougal]

Admittedly, I live in a country where sheep are reputed to outnumber people, but still...

[Eclipse of the Dark Sun]

I'm not from a farm, I'm not particularly interested in sheep and goats, and I know they look pretty similar and are obviously related at some level. And that goats can smell pretty bad. Goats produce milk and cheese.

To me they seemed pretty similar, so I'm not surprised they switched from talking about how bariaur were like sheep (a ram) in one sentence, to talking about how they were like goats in the next.

Heck, this wikipedia entry says: The Sheep (also known as Ram or Goat) is one of the 12-year cycle of animals which appear in the Chinese zodiac related to the Chinese calendar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep_(zodiac)

Goats and sheep seem to both be termed rams when you talk about an adult male.

My point is - I, and I suspect most people - confuse goats and sheep to some extent.

[loseth]

Admittedly, I live in a country where sheep are reputed to...


Heh, heh, heh. Ah, heh, heh, heh.


...outnumber people

Oh. ;)

[Wood]

My point is - I, and I suspect most people - confuse goats and sheep to some extent.Bloody hell. You were serious?

Live and learn.

Maybe it's just a British thing; over here, it's sort of thought to be blindingly, sky-is-actually-blue obvious. You know: that's a sheep, that's a goat, that's a cow, that's a pig. That level of obvious.

And I've always lived in the city. Mind you, the British definition of "city" is somewhat at variance with American and Australian definitions.

Heh, heh, heh. Ah, heh, heh, heh.

Oh. ;)
Mate, I live in Wales. I've heard the lot of them. :p

[Acrozatarim]

So I keep my game stuff in my office, and I work at home. I decide to see what the stuff I recently got back has to say.

From MC8 Outer Planes appendix (I have the binder to hand): "...bariaurs combine the attributes of man and ram rather than those of man and horse. These outer planar creatures have the body of a large and powerful ram." The (Thomas Baxa) illustration is so ram-like it hurts.

In the Player's Guide to the Planes (from the box set) p11: "In appearance, it's a combination of man and ram or woman and ewe. Roughly human sized, it has the body of a large goat and the torso and arms of a human."

Hang on? In one sentence it says they're half sheep and in the very next sentence it says they're in fact goats? Curiouser and curiouser.



Hmm, MC8 Outer Planes appendix, was that the outer planes monster stuff that was available before Planescape was released? Might be that at that point they were indeed rather sheep-aspected in nature. The second comment, yeah, that's odd... but overall, throughout the Planescape line, they are generally depicted as very goat-like rather than sheep-like (in terms of not having a big fluffy coat of wool like many domestic sheep breeds, for instance). I stand by the assertion that the general theme of bariaur in Planescape was definitely goats, not sheep, and the Planescape approach is the one that counts ;)

[Colonel Pyat]

Bariaurs always reminded me of rams - male sheep in British parlance - what with the curly, ram-style horns they're invariably depicted with.

Also, there was a Bariaur NPC in Faces of Sigil, called Wooly Cupgrass - the first name definitely intimating to me a link between Bariaurs and rams/sheep.

[Wood]

Maybe they really couldn't tell the difference. Weird.

[tolcreator]

On one side, you have your familliar wooly cloud with legs... on the other, a lean and rangey splotchy brown animal. The first is clearly a sheep, the latter clearly a goat. However there is more of a spectrum to it... before we domesticated sheep, they looked a lot more like goats, as we've used selective breeding to alter them as much as we have cows and dogs. So there is probably some area of confusion with certain breeds/species of sheep and goats.

[d(sqrt(-1))]

Also, is this related to the difference between stoats and weasels?

Mark

[Acrozatarim]

Also, is this related to the difference between stoats and weasels?

Mark

This brings to my mind the curious image of a weasel-taur, or maybe a stoat/goat hybrid :eek:

[Ghola]

Yes, undoubtably there is a solid gaming orientation in levels. Now the question arises (and this is important in game design) ... is there another method of achieving the same sort of re-negotiation of playing styles, the same sort of rewards etc without offending a sense of realism or imposing artifical limits?

whoosh!

He just said that "levels are fun."

[Wood]

whoosh!

He just said that "levels are fun."Don't be hard on Lev, because I agree with him on most things, but yes, I did say that.

Willing suspension of disbelief is impossible... but I don't think that it matters in D&D. You don't have to suspend disbelief in D&D. D&D is about laughs.

And killing things.

And taking their stuff. And you know what? I've just rediscovered the simple pleasure of doing that.

Actually, Lev's question is about something else, anyway. he's musing on whether you can do "power-ups" in a game which does have the whole deal with story or simulation. Which is a worthwhile question, if that's the kind of game you want.

[d(sqrt(-1))]

This brings to my mind the curious image of a weasel-taur, or maybe a stoat/goat hybrid :eek:

The difficulty with a stoat/goat hybrid, is that they would be indistinguishable by name: st/oat, or g/oat. This would cause unnecessary delay in combat while you tried to figure out whether you were being attacked by stoats, goats or the dreaded stoat-goat.

Hm, the stoat-goat. Another good reason to put string round the bottom of your trouser legs. Either that, or it's something like the Spruce Goose (which you also wouldn't want down your trousers).

Mark

[Chiaroscuro]

Excellent points all and I agree with you.

The only thing that really gets me is this "builds" jazz. Reminds me too much of wargame army building--and I'm well aware of the wargame/rpg shared heritage.

In earlier D&D, for example, a Paladin got this & that at x level; different or better this & that at x + 1 level, etc. All good in my book.

Now, before anybody even rolls a single die to play with a newly generated character, they've got a more comprehensive career path planned out than most high school seniors in wealthy prep schools do.

Matter of fact, people spend a heckuva lot of time on the net discussing ways to make the best career path choices to eventually become the baddest dude/dudette ever. That makes for more individualized PCs and is a meta-game in itself but it seems to detract from people ever actually playing---or goodness forbid they made a 'bad' choice of feats 3 levels back.

I know that all 5th level barbarians used to look the same but at least people spent time playing instead of plotting out what they'll do at 20th level---other than kicking butt :)

Nah, it's not a requirement. You can spend a lot of time planning a build if you like, but you don't have to. And that's all to the good, because it lets different sorts of people have their different sorts of fun in the same game. I mean, if it offends you (and clearly it offends some people) that others plan and "build", then you have the dreaded your-fun-intrudes-on-my-fun situation, but if it's just that you want Sir Alledore the Ranger to investigate the meaning of civilization and whether it's better to live wild or under man's laws while Alice wants Throg the barbarian to mindlessly smash and Bob wants to be a Rogue 3/Swashbuckler 3/Ur-Priest 5/Mystic Theurge 10 (name optional) and plan his feats out to twentieth level, you can all do it at the same table.

There's no necessary conflict between playing the game now and planning out what it will be like in the future. There's not even too huge a power differential between people who just play Cleric straight to 20 and pick feats as they get 'em and those who take three prestige classes (though there is, or can be, a differential depending on how well the powergaming goes; it's just not a huge, unmanageable distance between the two.)

[Afterburner]

Hang on? In one sentence it says they're half sheep and in the very next sentence it says they're in fact goats? Curiouser and curiouser.

Body of a goat. Torso of a humanoid. Facial and cranial features of a ram/ewe.

[vitus979]

Excellent points all and I agree with you.

The only thing that really gets me is this "builds" jazz. Reminds me too much of wargame army building--and I'm well aware of the wargame/rpg shared heritage.

In earlier D&D, for example, a Paladin got this & that at x level; different or better this & that at x + 1 level, etc. All good in my book.

Now, before anybody even rolls a single die to play with a newly generated character, they've got a more comprehensive career path planned out than most high school seniors in wealthy prep schools do.

Matter of fact, people spend a heckuva lot of time on the net discussing ways to make the best career path choices to eventually become the baddest dude/dudette ever. That makes for more individualized PCs and is a meta-game in itself but it seems to detract from people ever actually playing---or goodness forbid they made a 'bad' choice of feats 3 levels back.

I know that all 5th level barbarians used to look the same but at least people spent time playing instead of plotting out what they'll do at 20th level---other than kicking butt :)

The reason "builds" have become popular is that they're an objective way to discuss your character and if given a receptive audience every player would like to talk about his/her character. But nobody wants to hear about how you foiled the plots of the evil Count Schadenfreude (or whatever), or how your GM showers you/is very sparing with Items. Other players are completely divorced from your campaign. However builds are the same across campaigns, the only difference crops up when individual GMs houserule things and they have a tendancy not to houserule PrCs and Feats as much (except to eliminate them completely).

Another reason builds are popular is that they allow the player to toy with his character outside of session play. He can be looking and working on ways to make his character better in the future, while in AD&D if you were a fighter you just got what you got.

The only time I really hear feats or builds come up during play is in a situation where a specific feat would be really useful. Cleave comes up most often. Bob the Bold will deliver a killing blow to a goblin and Harry (his player) says he's done. John (player of Steve the Stupendous) will say "You know you can Cleave onto another goblin right?" and Harry will say something like "Bob the Bold doesn't have Cleave yet, I had to take X Y and Z in order to be able to [insert horrible death for enemies here]. I get Cleave in 2 levels".

[Tigerbunny]

Yah. The "build" thing is a bit overrepresented on Teh Intarwub, both because it's easy to talk about and because it rewards obsessive geeks with too much time on their hands (who happen to be the prime demographic of said Intarwub). In actual play, I see it well-represented in groups recruited by means of the Net, and not so well-represented among many other groups.

Indeed, I'm currently facing a bit of a recruitment dilemma, as I specifically want to recruit non-hardcore players, but both Net sources and the FLGS cater more to the hardcore than to the casual.

[Particle_Man]

What's worse is when they're blathering about what feats they're going to buy in five levels.... at the gaming table. During a battle.

You mean like this? :)

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1042

[Gizmit]

Also, is this related to the difference between stoats and weasels?

Mark

All musk-producing rodents are weasels. A stoat is a musk-producing rodent. Unfortunately, so are skunks and wolverines. They're all weasels.

[Afterburner]

All musk-producing rodents are weasels. A stoat is a musk-producing rodent. Unfortunately, so are skunks and wolverines. They're all weasels.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that skunks, stoats, wolverines, and weasels are all mustelids?

</UselessPedantry>

[Old Geezer]

You mean like this? :)

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1042

Yeah. Exactly like that.

In the middle of diplomatic negotiations at a high-level party and the goober suddenly starts blathering out loud about what Prestige Class he's going to take a level in next.

Jesus.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[d(sqrt(-1))]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that skunks, stoats, wolverines, and weasels are all mustelids?

</UselessPedantry>

Of course, one of them is weaselly recognised, while the other is stoatally different...

Mark

[Plume]

Yes. I get it. I understand. Level rises are power-ups; they allow you re-negotiate playing styles. It's not supposed to be a simulation of anything. It's not supposed to tell a story. It's a game. A game, dammit.

D&D still isn't my thing, but I find this insight well worth repeating, even as I am deeply comfortable in my position as a lover of storytelling and all. These are games, and having features that make for fun gaming is a good thing. "Because it's fun in this situation" is a good answer.

[Plume]

Actually, Lev's question is about something else, anyway. he's musing on whether you can do "power-ups" in a game which does have the whole deal with story or simulation. Which is a worthwhile question, if that's the kind of game you want.

To be honest, I've had times of wondering in recent years (I originally typed "resent years" which is also sort of honest, but that's another story :-)) whether I and folks like me sometime place so much priority on the purity of the fictional environment that we end up both twisting the mechanics into pretzels and missing out on some simple fun. I've also done some pondering about whether people end up making decisions that satisfy them longer if they get to decide on several new features at once, every once in a while, rather than getting one at a time piecemeal. The social sciences answer seems to be "it depends on the kinds of choices" which is not the most help. :-) But it's genuinely not out of the question that someone who's leveled up and is raising attributes and skills and powers all at once will have more fun and make decisions that better reflect their long-term goals for the character than someone buying individual features with xp without leveling or its equivalent.

[PlanetNiles]

Levels suck and are dumb.

I really enjoy DnD despite this.

So sue me.

Why, if you can accept levels why is there a goat/sheep confusion? Bariaurs are like both goats and sheep. Unless you're planning to have them cut their own hair and using the cuttings to mkae their own knitware...

[Wood]

Levels suck and are dumb.

I really enjoy DnD despite this.

So sue me.

Why, if you can accept levels why is there a goat/sheep confusion? Bariaurs are like both goats and sheep. Unless you're planning to have them cut their own hair and using the cuttings to mkae their own knitware...It's not an enormous issue.

Except that there's this injoke about one of my players having a "sheep thing", and we thought it amusing that she play one of the sheep-people.

No, don't ask.

Speaking of that. I can cobble together 3rd-ed rules for Bariaurs, right (and I've found about 3 versions on the net), but if I wanted the official version... well, I've done some searches and found myself confused. Now bear in mind I have a set of 3.0 books (and I'm not bothered about buying the 3.5 ones. 3.0 works fine for me). Planescape factions are a piece of piss to convert over, and Tieflings and Aasimar are in the Monster Manual and DMG, so that's OK.

The 3rd ed. Manual of the Planes I can get really cheap on eBay, right. The Planar Handbook and the Book of Exalted Deeds, which also, apparently have Bariaur rules in them are pretty much full price, and I'm tight (although I expect I can get PDFs... although DriveThru doesn't have the Planar Handbook, so that option's stuffed).

So I'm thinking of getting a Manual of the Planes, just for the updated plane descriptions, the extra selection of monsters and rules for Bariaur PCs. But reviews are unclear: Are the rules in the Manual of the Planes for Bariaur PCs adequate?

[Failed Saving Throw]

It's interesting to read all the problems people have with D&D that seem so mundane or nitpickey to me. Taking issue with the XP system of level advancement is definitely a new one to my ears. I think the most solid criticisms of D&D rest in its emphasis on combat and tactical play and the quality/frequency of the books being put out now by WoTC (endless prestige classes no one will play, feats no one will use, etc.).

Back to levels - I'm starting to like systems that don't use them less and less. WFRP is a good example. The career advancement system just strikes me as goofy ("Hey there, I'm an explorer, ex-scout ex-vagabond, don'tchaknow), and moves along at such a slow crawl that you don't get that feel that your character is getting more powerful, or even that he has any new tricks he can pull out of his pocket other than "I stab it" or "I shoot it with my pistol" and then "I Dodge Blow for dear life." Yawn. The options a 12th-level character in D&D 3.5 has over a third-career character in WFRP are staggering, believe me.

And another advantage to D&D's level system is that is gives DM's a powerful tool to scale encounte rdifficulties up or down as they see fit to tailor the flow of an adventure. I was just discussing that with friends in my current WFRP gaming group - how it's difficult to plan a flow of encounters in WFRP, as there's no true CR system, and a seemingly easy encounter can go horribly awry, resulting in a half-party wipe on the first night!

[Wood]

It's interesting to read all the problems people have with D&D that seem so mundane or nitpickey to me. Taking issue with the XP system of level advancement is definitely a new one to my ears.

Really? it was always the main one when I was playing it.

[Afterburner]

Really? it was always the main one when I was playing it.

Levels, classes, and alignment system seem to be the perennial "Big 3" when it comes to D&D gripes.

[Wood]

So. About those Bariaurs? Manual of the Planes adequate (in the way that I consider the 3.0 MM/DMG adequate)?

[FundyPagan]

Now, before anybody even rolls a single die to play with a newly generated character, they've got a more comprehensive career path planned out than most high school seniors in wealthy prep schools do.

Completely agree with this, and it's what stops my more casual gaming group from playing D&D. I like the personalization, but most of them don't want to read through pages and pages of feats and plan things out - and who can blame them?

I'm also a bit - intimidated? - by the volume of spells, spell feats, etc... I think it's also partially responsible for me not daring to try to GM D&D (along with the feat planning).

I mean, if it offends you (and clearly it offends some people) that others plan and "build", then you have the dreaded your-fun-intrudes-on-my-fun situation

This feels like that "I'm a Mac" commercial talking about Vista.

"You are pointing out Vista's flaws... cancel or allow?"

Very good point. For me, it does feel like the system is designed to be planned though. Not using it would be like buying a $3000 computer to play solitaire - sort of a waste, and honestly a little bit retarded.

Good point, though. Shouldn't let others ruin your fun.

Yah. The "build" thing is a bit overrepresented on Teh Intarwub, both because it's easy to talk about and because it rewards obsessive geeks with too much time on their hands (who happen to be the prime demographic of said Intarwub). In actual play, I see it well-represented in groups recruited by means of the Net, and not so well-represented among many other groups.

Indeed, I'm currently facing a bit of a recruitment dilemma, as I specifically want to recruit non-hardcore players, but both Net sources and the FLGS cater more to the hardcore than to the casual.

For the first part - it isn't just the web. There are series of supplements written on the stuff.

For the second part - I hear you, my brother. <sigh>

How do you find the balance between players willing to learn the rules, but not those that obsess over them?

...whether I and folks like me sometime place so much priority on the purity of the fictional environment that we end up both twisting the mechanics into pretzels and missing out on some simple fun.

The worst part is, even after you realize it, it isn't easy to just stop. :(

It's interesting to read all the problems people have with D&D that seem so mundane or nitpickey to me.

The worst part is, even after you realize it, it isn't easy to just stop. :(


I am a fan of the point based systems that let you save up and buy something new. It has that sort of impact people were talking about enjoying with levels. It allows you to choose to bump up skills or whatever bit by bit, or save up and say "WOW! I grew a third arm! SWELL!"

[vitus979]

So I'm thinking of getting a Manual of the Planes, just for the updated plane descriptions, the extra selection of monsters and rules for Bariaur PCs. But reviews are unclear: Are the rules in the Manual of the Planes for Bariaur PCs adequate?

I'd really suggest going to an FLGS and flipping through both books before you buy. My recollection is a little spotty on both, but I seem to remember that the two books cover different topics of "planar campaigns".

[Old Geezer]

Levels suck and are dumb.




Levels perfectly encapsulate Pure Gaming Goodness, and anybody who disagrees is just a dumb ol' poo-poo head.

[sim_james]

For some reason bariaurs were never a significant part of my Planescape campaigns. I can honestly say that thri-kreen have played a more prominent role. ;)Maybe it's just a British thing; over here, it's sort of thought to be blindingly, sky-is-actually-blue obvious. You know: that's a sheep, that's a goat, that's a cow, that's a pig. That level of obvious.I reckon most Australians have a good idea of what sheep look like; the country was said to be "built on the sheeps back" for a portion of our history, we've had them on currency, you see them on the news when there's a story about the drought. Sheep and Hereford cattle.

Goats are less well known, because who really cares about goats? I saw a couple when I was living in country NSW, as compared to thousands of sheep. But still, I'd hazard that people would guess that they look like "not-sheep", so to speak.

The issue that I have with bariaurs is that they don't look much like any sheep or goat that I've personally seen! Not round and wooly enough to be a sheep, and not haggard and ugly enough to be a goat. The horns on a male bariaur do look a lot like a ram's horns, though, so if I had to choose I'd go with sheep.

I think bariaurs are supposed to be closer to wild mountain sheep (http://www.fabuloussavers.com/wallpapers/264s.jpg) and goats rather than anything domesticated though. And I'd still go with sheep. ;)
Mind you, the British definition of "city" is somewhat at variance with American and Australian definitions.Not sure what you folks in the UK use, but I suspect that the American definition of "city" is very different to the Australian one. There are lots of American cities that have only a few thousand inhabitants. We call those "towns" here. A lot of Australians act like anything less than a state capital doesn't really count as a city. But then, that's where the majority of Australians actually live.

[Singing Smurf]

So. About those Bariaurs? Manual of the Planes adequate (in the way that I consider the 3.0 MM/DMG adequate)?

*gets up and looks*

Yes, it has enough information. MotP has a different emphasis than Planescape, but that's not really a problem.

Also, it's 3.0, like your core books.


-S.

[vitus979]

Goats are less well known, because who really cares about goats? I saw a couple when I was living in country NSW, as compared to thousands of sheep. But still, I'd hazard that people would guess that they look like "not-sheep", so to speak.

My parents hosted a foreign exchange student from Tokyo who'd never been to a farm, let alone a western style Cows & Pigs & Chickens & Corn & Beans farm that you find in the midwest (the kind of farm you'd find in artwork like American Gothic). My uncle owns such a farm and according to my parents she couldn't tell the difference between a cow and the family horse when they visited.

As mentioned upthread, there's a sheep <-> goat continuum, with Billy Goat Gruff at one end and the white puff-ball sheep you see sleeping at the other end. Things get a bit more iffy in the middle. When I was in St. Martin there were some sheep I mistook for goats for example. Both were scrawny with horns and neither had a thick coat of wool.

[Wood]

*gets up and looks*

Yes, it has enough information. MotP has a different emphasis than Planescape, but that's not really a problem.

Also, it's 3.0, like your core books.


-S.Brilliant. Thanks!

[Particle_Man]

Of course, one of them is weaselly recognised, while the other is stoatally different...

Mark

You have made such a good point that I feel sheepish.

[Failed Saving Throw]

Levels, classes, and alignment system seem to be the perennial "Big 3" when it comes to D&D gripes.

Odd. I've been playing a long time, through three editions (1, 2 and 3.5), and no one's ever complained about the level system.

Most experienced D&D players tend to punt the alignment system out the door too - it's not very hard to do.

[Afterburner]

Odd. I've been playing a long time, through three editions (1, 2 and 3.5), and no one's ever complained about the level system.

Naturally. People who complain about the three things I mentioned usually don't actually play D&D. People who play D&D usually have other gripes.

[Iceberg3k]

Odd. I've been playing a long time, through three editions (1, 2 and 3.5), and no one's ever complained about the level system.

Most experienced D&D players tend to punt the alignment system out the door too - it's not very hard to do.
I've had to warn a PC that his actions were out of alignment ONCE. EVER.

And that was when a CG character was about to slit the throat of a surrendered captive.

Cold-bloodedly killing a helpless hostage is pretty damned despicable no matter how you cut it.

[Particle_Man]

Generally the only time alignment issues come up in D&D campaigns I am in surround the "what is a paladin allowed/required/forbidden to do?" debate.

Though separately, a DM once did *make* a fellow-player become chaotic after some actions, the player agreed, so no prob.

That said, I and other DMs often have a "no evil PCs" rule.

[Benoist Poire]

Indeed, levels are fun, classes as well, and alignments are suggestions of behaviour ultimately interpreted by DM and players. Bottom line : we have no problem with DnD whatsoever at our game table.

I'm glad of the way you completed your revolution, Wood. Hopefully, it'll allow you to have fun in different ways with your Planescape game ! :)

[Agent Oracle]

Goat and sheep

http://press.princeton.edu/birds/mammals/goats/goats.jpg

are closely related, especially once you get off the domesticated aspects.

They're related like horses and donkeys are related: just enough to produce a sterile offspring...

http://www.ifgene.org/geep.jpg

That's a "Geep" half-goat half-sheep. Not a common occurance, since male goats show almost no intrest in female sheep, but it has happened. Note the patches of goat-like hair and sheep-like wool?

[sim_james]

What a hideous little lamb. Is that what Mary the Hobgoblin likes to herd?

[The Formless One]

Goat and sheep

http://press.princeton.edu/birds/mammals/goats/goats.jpg

are closely related, especially once you get off the domesticated aspects.

They're related like horses and donkeys are related: just enough to produce a sterile offspring...

http://www.ifgene.org/geep.jpg

That's a "Geep" half-goat half-sheep. Not a common occurance, since male goats show almost no intrest in female sheep, but it has happened. Note the patches of goat-like hair and sheep-like wool?
A geep is a chimera (artificially created), not a hybrid.

Sorry, it's a technicality, but that little beastie there ain't how they naturally look.

[Theophage]

One question, though, on a Planescape vibe. I clearly remember Bariaurs being half-sheep. But recent product reviews and web stuff describes them as half-goat.

Er, when did they change species?

Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell...




I have nothing useful to add

[Wood]

This thread has made me laugh. And I have a 3.0 MotP coming in the post.

Thanks, lads.