Roleplaying Sci-fi

[Eleas]

"Yes, they can, but it van take a very large amount of work."

Depends on their construction. Ah well. We agree, at least, that the campaign world != the system?

"A skill based system is going top have it's own set of numbers that need to be used though, isn't it?"

Yep, that's right. That's what I referred to. We count the number of terms and the speed of the operations necessary for a given level of detail / flexibility / probability spread to get the best system. "Best" in a mathematical sense, that is. I doubt there is a way to determine the c

"I wasn't aware of that. Is the system available in English?"

It may be some day, but right now, Västmark only comes in Swedish. I was toying with the idea of asking Krille for permission to translate it, but I don't think he'd want anyone to do it but himself.

"If you want magic you take a level of class that spends time learning it and forego the benefits of your other class for that level. For this fighter, he could take a level of wizard if his intelligence was 11 or sorceror if his charisma was 11, or cleric if his wisdom was 11. He would gain the abilities of a first level member of that class, and add those to his already existing abilities."

Why would there be a difference between being able to cast spells and playing an instrument?

"I have no experience with d20 SW."

This discussion was about the unfeasibility of d20 as a universal system, and about its application to SW. You agreed with the problem of the first, and have no opinion / knowledge of the second. There's little more to discuss, IMHO.

"Pretty close. Take the example of a 20th level D&D fighter with appropriately chosen feats for his favourite weapon, the greatsword.

500 goblins rush him in a tight (for them) formation. He swings at one and kills it, then due to his great cleave feat takes a five foot step, swings at another and kills it then continues on until he rolls a 1 and misses, then finishes his other three attacks on nearby goblins. There will be some critical hits in there as well, but they don't matter that much with dealing with 1/2 hit dice monsters. The next round he is surrounded so he uses a whirlwind attack to hit them all and continues his cleaving. He will take somewhere near 87-90 damage per round from 500 goblins, so he will last for two minutes on average, three at best."

Why would he take that kind of damage when such a small amount of goblins can reach him at a time? Will they all get to strike? In that case, why don't you roll for everyone?

"This is a character that hs the ability to fight his way through the orc horde that shows up in the Mines of Moria, but he will be horrendously injured doing so."

...and that is good how?

[Eleas]

Oh, and by the way, apologies for the delay. I had a german here visiting, that should explain everything. I just wanted to wrap things up with this post.

[Graeme Dice]

"If you want magic you take a level of class that spends time learning it and forego the benefits of your other class for that level. For this fighter, he could take a level of wizard if his intelligence was 11 or sorceror if his charisma was 11, or cleric if his wisdom was 11. He would gain the abilities of a first level member of that class, and add those to his already existing abilities."

Why would there be a difference between being able to cast spells and playing an instrument?

Learning to play an instrument is not the major role of any of the classes. A Fighter spends his working day (8 hours) training, a wizard spends it researching spells. The classes define what the character specializes in.

Why would he take that kind of damage when such a small amount of goblins can reach him at a time? Will they all get to strike? In that case, why don't you roll for everyone?

He is moving into range of many, many goblins, who will get attacks of oppurtunity due to his movement by them plus their normal attacks.

"This is a character that hs the ability to fight his way through the orc horde that shows up in the Mines of Moria, but he will be horrendously injured doing so."

...and that is good how?

[/quote]
Because: "When in doubt, Hack!"

[Pendragon]

"If you want magic you take a level of class that spends time learning it and forego the benefits of your other class for that level. For this fighter, he could take a level of wizard if his intelligence was 11 or sorceror if his charisma was 11, or cleric if his wisdom was 11. He would gain the abilities of a first level member of that class, and add those to his already existing abilities."

Why would there be a difference between being able to cast spells and playing an instrument?

Learning to play an instrument is not the major role of any of the classes. A Fighter spends his working day (8 hours) training, a wizard spends it researching spells. The classes define what the character specializes in.

Did they do away with the bard class since 2ed then?

Why would he take that kind of damage when such a small amount of goblins can reach him at a time? Will they all get to strike? In that case, why don't you roll for everyone?

He is moving into range of many, many goblins, who will get attacks of oppurtunity due to his movement by them plus their normal attacks.

Well if we stick to the mines of moria analogy, not one one of the heroes were more than slighlty wounded, YET it was hardly something they pulled off easily. What bothers me is that a fight cant be close in D&D without it meaning that both combatants suffer horrible damage.

"This is a character that hs the ability to fight his way through the orc horde that shows up in the Mines of Moria, but he will be horrendously injured doing so."

...and that is good how?

Because: "When in doubt, Hack!"

So combat is supposed to be a vital story element and solution for problems, but rarely interesting?
What an interesting set of priorities you have.

[Graeme Dice]

Did they do away with the bard class since 2ed then?

No, bards are a thief/sorceror hybrid with the ability to play songs that can give actual bonuses to the party.

Because: "When in doubt, Hack!"

So combat is supposed to be a vital story element and solution for problems, but rarely interesting?
What an interesting set of priorities you have.[/quote]
Since when is D&D combat not interesting? It's pretty much a tactical wargame where the characters represent one person rather than a few hundred.

I haven't seen many systems that have the same sort of spell selection as D&D either. Generic systems tend to suffer from generic spells.

[Pendragon]

Did they do away with the bard class since 2ed then?

No, bards are a thief/sorceror hybrid with the ability to play songs that can give actual bonuses to the party.

And that is not playing instruments? Can they use a boom box?

Because: "When in doubt, Hack!"

So combat is supposed to be a vital story element and solution for problems, but rarely interesting?
What an interesting set of priorities you have.

Since when is D&D combat not interesting? It's pretty much a tactical wargame where the characters represent one person rather than a few hundred.

There's your basic philosophy difference. I don't think that every combat should be interesting. For a high-level character, most _should_ be walkovers.

You know, it would be a lot easier if you picked a side... Interesting or not, make up your mind.
And since 99% of D&D combat is "he hits you for X hitpoints, you have X hitpoints left. You hit him for X hit points etc, etc". It devolves from combat into hitpoint subtraction. I have as much fun playing with a cheap calculator.

I haven't seen many systems that have the same sort of spell selection as D&D either. Generic systems tend to suffer from generic spells.

More supplements = better gamesystem?
The amount of spells has nothing to do with the system itself. Youre diverting the issue.
I'd say Palladiumbooks games have a wider spell selection than youll ever need, if D&D' is even wider its probably uneccesarily much.
But since youre whining ill point out that the swedsih fantasy game "Drakar och Demoner" (similar name but has nothing to do with D&D) has a wide enough spell selection that I doubt that we've ever used 25% of all the spells in our several campaigns (weve been playing it off and on for over 10 years). I dont really see the point of adding even more spells to that, but if you really want to there are quick and easy guidelines (rather than actual rules) for doing so, both for the PC's and the GM.

[weemadando]

Yeah. I play/have played: Amber Diceless, 1st/2nd Ed AD&D, Hong Kong Action Theatre, RIFTS, Big Eyes Small Mouth, SLA Industries and Paranoia.

[Graeme Dice]

And that is not playing instruments? Can they use a boom box?

Is a boom box going to give magical bonuses to party members?

You know, it would be a lot easier if you picked a side... Interesting or not, make up your mind.
And since 99% of D&D combat is "he hits you for X hitpoints, you have X hitpoints left. You hit him for X hit points etc, etc". It devolves from combat into hitpoint subtraction. I have as much fun playing with a cheap calculator.

That's too bad for you then. I enjoy the combat.

More supplements = better game?

Yes, it does. It makes the job of the GM easier.

The amount of spells has nothing to do with the system itself. Youre diverting the issue.

The amount of spells has everything to do with the system, because they are an integral part of it. The interaction between protection and defensive spells is a perfect example of this.

I'd say Palladiumbooks games have a wider spell selection than youll ever need, if D&D' is even wider its probably uneccesarily much.

So how many pages of spells are there in a book that includes nothing but them from Rifts?

But since youre whining ill point out that the swedsih fantasy game "Drakar och Demoner" (similar name but has nothing to do with D&D) has a wide enough spell selection that I doubt that we've ever used 25% of all the spells in our several campaigns (weve been playing it off and on for over 10 years). I dont really see the point of adding even more spells to that, but if you really want to there are quick and easy guidelines (rather than actual rules) for doing so, both for the PC's and the GM.

Unless a translation exists, the number of spells in a Swedish system is entirely irrelevant to the number in an English system.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I was kinda under the influence that people in RPG's were like Beowulf, or the greek heroes, related to gods, capable of doing things no one in their right minds would try, much less suceed, and ultimately tragic figures.

[FireNexus]

I'm a big fan of Palladium RIFTS RPG, and I'm also getting into Screaming Silence, an RPG written for Christopher Blankley's Reflex roleplaying system.

You should check it out, it's mucho cool. www.blankley.net/scream.pdf

Bye now.

[Eleas]

"Learning to play an instrument is not the major role of any of the classes. A Fighter spends his working day (8 hours) training, a wizard spends it researching spells. The classes define what the character specializes in."

No, they define what aspect of combat the character specializes in. Again, explain to me the rationale for why learning how to play an instrument would be different from learning to cast spells.

"He is moving into range of many, many goblins, who will get attacks of oppurtunity due to his movement by them plus their normal attacks."

You conveniently didn't answer me in regards to the main question: do you roll attacks for every one, or do you assume that x attacks hit? And is this a homebrew rule or something from the book?

"Because: "When in doubt, Hack!"

This makes no sense at all. Let me rephrase: why would it be desirable to play a character with such ludicrous abilities?

"Is a boom box going to give magical bonuses to party members?"

Ah, so a class in your favourite role playing game is only relevant when it grants you a hefty combat bonus?

"That's too bad for you then. I enjoy the combat."

I enjoy combat, but I detest mechanical subtraction of points. Above "combat" could be simulated by a for - next loop.

"Yes, it does. It makes the job of the GM easier."

...and has nothing at all to do with the actual system, so it's a red herring.

"The amount of spells has everything to do with the system, because they are an integral part of it. The interaction between protection and defensive spells is a perfect example of this."

The fact that every other iteration of the d20 system lacks these same spells should tell you that you're wrong. The d20 system powers D&D too, you know. You could hardly claim D&D is a separate system that just happens to be like d20 only with D&D - specific spells.

<snip talk about spells irrelevant to the subject at hand>

[Graeme Dice]

"Learning to play an instrument is not the major role of any of the classes. A Fighter spends his working day (8 hours) training, a wizard spends it researching spells. The classes define what the character specializes in."

No, they define what aspect of combat the character specializes in. Again, explain to me the rationale for why learning how to play an instrument would be different from learning to cast spells.

The entire point of the D&D system when first created was to create a system similar to those of squad-based wargames, except that in this case each miniature represented a single character, so the statistics could be made more complicated.

"He is moving into range of many, many goblins, who will get attacks of oppurtunity due to his movement by them plus their normal attacks."

You conveniently didn't answer me in regards to the main question: do you roll attacks for every one, or do you assume that x attacks hit? And is this a homebrew rule or something from the book?

Attacks of opportunity are an integral part of the 3rd edition combat system. Fighters even get a feat called "combat reflexes" that allows them to take extra AOO's against every opponent that leaves themselves open. You could roll the dice 500 times if you felt like it, but I would just either use the average or run a dice-roller on a calculator.

"Because: "When in doubt, Hack!"

This makes no sense at all. Let me rephrase: why would it be desirable to play a character with such ludicrous abilities?

Why? Because you might not want to play a normal human with better skills like I already said. You might want to play a fantasy superhero.

I enjoy combat, but I detest mechanical subtraction of points. Above "combat" could be simulated by a for - next loop.

A for next loop will not include the movement, interactions of area-effect spells, and so on. Further, a 20th level character shouldn't even be concerning himself with Goblins. He would be at the head of an army dealing with the opposing dragons, or travelling through the planes and getting involved in the Blood War.

"The amount of spells has everything to do with the system, because they are an integral part of it. The interaction between protection and defensive spells is a perfect example of this."

The fact that every other iteration of the d20 system lacks these same spells should tell you that you're wrong. The d20 system powers D&D too, you know. You could hardly claim D&D is a separate system that just happens to be like d20 only with D&D - specific spells.

I've already stated that d20 doesn't work in any other situation, what more do you want? You aren't going to get me to say that D&D is a bad system, because such a statement is nothing more than a matter of opinion. It accomplishes exactly what I want it to.

[Eleas]

<snip>

"I've already stated that d20 doesn't work in any other situation, what more do you want?"

In general, not much. I started out asserting that d20 was a shitty universal system, no, a shitty system, and then simply followed your statements to see what they implied.

"You aren't going to get me to say that D&D is a bad system, because such a statement is nothing more than a matter of opinion. It accomplishes exactly what I want it to."

So the merits of a system is arbitrary? I don't by that, not in the least. A system's quality can, as I've stated before, be described mathematically. In that sense, d20 is not a good system. It may still be fun to play, but it's not a quality system anymore than a Big Mac is health food.

[Graeme Dice]

"You aren't going to get me to say that D&D is a bad system, because such a statement is nothing more than a matter of opinion. It accomplishes exactly what I want it to."

So the merits of a system is arbitrary?[/quote]
Yes.

I don't by that, not in the least. A system's quality can, as I've stated before, be described mathematically.

Then you won't mind me asking for the proof that D&D is an inferior system, and the equation for determining what is a superior system so that I can use it to create the ultimate system after some computerized optimization.

In that sense, d20 is not a good system. It may still be fun to play, but it's not a quality system anymore than a Big Mac is health food.

This is nothing more than your opinion.

[Eleas]

"Yes."

Wrong. If I have two systems, and they describe the same scene with the same rules, and do everything exactly the same, and one system is twice as fast, that is no subjective impression, Graeme.

"Then you won't mind me asking for the proof that D&D is an inferior system, and the equation for determining what is a superior system so that I can use it to create the ultimate system after some computerized optimization."

No, I won't mind, but the notion that you could optimize away integral flaws with a system sounds good but is optimistic. Everyone tries it once in a while, and after a while, the system is no longer itself. It can work, but results in a homebrew system, for good or worse.

Point two. The ultimate system for what? Every desired feel and setting is different and has different demands. It's much like the engine of a motor vehicle. Could I, with the right education, construct an engine better than a commercial grade one? Not impossible. Could I just generate the perfect engine with a computer formula? Of course not. And even if I did, would it be ideal for all vehicles? Ludicrous.

Point three. You snipped my entire discourse on why D&D wasn't a system. This must mean you agree with me. In that case, you're referring to d20.

Point four. The fact that you equate performance being measurable with being calculable with a simple formula says something about your mind. Something terrible and sad.

Point five. The d20 mechanism that can be done away with is the idea of vitality points or hit points representing dodges, which the defense score already covers. That is one thing that could be changed. Another thing that should be changed is one that FUDGE does better - the probability range. A third thing is the unnecessary amount of different dice. If the damage isn't supposed to be realistic, then why bother with such exotic types of dice? Another is the rising damage by level, which would much better be handled by simply giving extra damage if you beat your enemy by x points. Another is the attack bonus, which is better broken out of the level system entirely and made into a skill - I hear D&D does something like that. I could go on. And on. And on.

These are the first things that come to mind. But game design is an art, not a mechanical process. The problems with d20 can be tackled in many ways, just so long as they're tackled.

"This is nothing more than your opinion."

An opinion backed up by fact and logic ceases to be an opinion and becomes an assertion. Let's see you back up your own.

[Graeme Dice]

"Yes."
Wrong. If I have two systems, and they describe the same scene with the same rules, and do everything exactly the same, and one system is twice as fast, that is no subjective impression, Graeme.

That is an impossibility. If two systems have the same rules, then they are the same system. If they do everything exactly the same, then they are the same system. Please show me a system that has exactly the same rules and mechanics as D&D, yet isn't D&D.

No, I won't mind, but the notion that you could optimize away integral flaws with a system sounds good but is optimistic. Everyone tries it once in a while, and after a while, the system is no longer itself. It can work, but results in a homebrew system, for good or worse.

You claimed that you were able to mathematically define what is a good RPG system. If that is the case, then all that is needed to create the perfect system is a genetic algorithim that creates random systems and applies your mathematical algorithim. It will eventually create the perfect system. So, where's your algorithim so that I can get started?

Point two. The ultimate system for what? Every desired feel and setting is different and has different demands. It's much like the engine of a motor vehicle. Could I, with the right education, construct an engine better than a commercial grade one? Not impossible. Could I just generate the perfect engine with a computer formula? Of course not. And even if I did, would it be ideal for all vehicles? Ludicrous.

Indeed, it is ludicrous, but you are the one who claimed it was possible.

You wrote:
"So the merits of a system is arbitrary? I don't by that, not in the least. A system's quality can, as I've stated before, be described mathematically. In that sense, d20 is not a good system. It may still be fun to play, but it's not a quality system anymore than a Big Mac is health food."

Where's your mathematical description of quality?

Point three. You snipped my entire discourse on why D&D wasn't a system. This must mean you agree with me. In that case, you're referring to d20.

D&D is a system. D20 is another system that happens to share the same mechanics as a subset of D&D. D20 by itself is useless, because it does not provide the information necessary in order to use it.

Point four. The fact that you equate performance being measurable with being calculable with a simple formula says something about your mind. Something terrible and sad.

Stop trying to bullshit your way around your own statements.

"A system's quality can, as I've stated before, be described mathematically."

If it can be described mathematically, then it can be reduced to a simple formula or set of formulas.

Point five. The d20 mechanism that can be done away with is the idea of vitality points or hit points representing dodges, which the defense score already covers. That is one thing that could be changed

Could be, not needs to be. Where'd your statement that it isn't arbitrary go once I called you on it?

Another thing that should be changed is one that FUDGE does better - the probability range.

Like what, rolling percentile dice? They already exist.

A third thing is the unnecessary amount of different dice. If the damage isn't supposed to be realistic, then why bother with such exotic types of dice?

Because some types of attacks aren't as dangerous as others. If you don't understand why 4d4 is different than 2d8, and both are different than 1d20-4, then you have no real place judging the probabilities of actions.

Another is the rising damage by level,

This does not exist in D&D.

which would much better be handled by simply giving extra damage if you beat your enemy by x points. Another is the attack bonus, which is better broken out of the level system entirely and made into a skill - I hear D&D does something like that. I could go on. And on. And on.

Attack bonus is determined by the combination of attack bonuses of all classes. You get extra an extra attack everytime your base

These are the first things that come to mind. But game design is an art, not a mechanical process.

Make up your mind. First, it's demonstratably mathematically inferior, now it's an art. First a good system is a well-defined thing, now it's arbitrary. Are you going to try and make up your mind on this anytime soon?

The problems with d20 can be tackled in many ways, just so long as they're tackled.

We are discussing D&D, not D20.

"This is nothing more than your opinion."

An opinion backed up by fact and logic ceases to be an opinion and becomes an assertion. Let's see you back up your own.

In order for an opinion to be backed up by fact and logic, you first need to have some actual fact and logic. I've seen some logic, and no facts.

[Eleas]

"That is an impossibility. If two systems have the same rules, then they are the same system. If they do everything exactly the same, then they are the same system. Please show me a system that has exactly the same rules and mechanics as D&D, yet isn't D&D."

Graeme, you're starting to piss me off. You know I have no experience with D&D. You know I haven't read it. And yet you continually bring back D&D into the discussion. I suspect you're looking for a way out.

It's easy enough to do as a mental exercise, anyway. Take one good system. Change every "roll one dice" to "roll one dice, double the value, then halve it". The system will be slower, yet do the same things.

"You claimed that you were able to mathematically define what is a good RPG system."

No, I said that a system's quality can be described mathematically. I never claimed to be able to describe it that way. I also didn't claim to be able to unite it into a formula.

"If that is the case, then all that is needed to create the perfect system is a genetic algorithim that creates random systems and applies your mathematical algorithim. It will eventually create the perfect system. So, where's your algorithim so that I can get started?"

If, instead of trying to score points while valiantly misunderstanding my words, you would try to listen, you'd lnow better than to write the above.

"Indeed, it is ludicrous, but you are the one who claimed it was possible.

You wrote:
"So the merits of a system is arbitrary? I don't by that, not in the least. A system's quality can, as I've stated before, be described mathematically. In that sense, d20 is not a good system. It may still be fun to play, but it's not a quality system anymore than a Big Mac is health food."

Where's your mathematical description of quality?"

Again, I never claimed to be able to do this. I said it was doable to describe its quality in mathematical terms. Terms like numbers. Speed. Flexibility. But you just made that little logical leap, apparently from a desire to emulate Elim.

"D&D is a system. D20 is another system that happens to share the same mechanics as a subset of D&D. D20 by itself is useless, because it does not provide the information necessary in order to use it."

Why, then, is the D&D "system" marketed with the big sticker marked "d20"? Why do Wizards of the Coast claim that "d20 is the name for the set of game mechanics that makes D&D go."? That descibes an engine, Graeme. Like to backpedal some more?

"Stop trying to bullshit your way around your own statements.

"A system's quality can, as I've stated before, be described mathematically."

If it can be described mathematically, then it can be reduced to a simple formula or set of formulas."

Wrong. The universe can be described in mathematical terms. Just because something obeys the laws of mathematics doesn't mean I have to be able to UNDERSTAND those laws, silly one.

"Could be, not needs to be. Where'd your statement that it isn't arbitrary go once I called you on it?"

It could be, and would make the system less ambigous and thus more flexible. I said could be because there are other ways of fixing the problem, not because there isn't a problem, Graeme.

"Like what, rolling percentile dice? They already exist."

Not in the d20 I know. But that was what I meant, roughly.

"Because some types of attacks aren't as dangerous as others. If you don't understand why 4d4 is different than 2d8, and both are different than 1d20-4, then you have no real place judging the probabilities of actions."

Oh, stop avoiding my points, Graeme. Even a twit can see that those probability ranges are far too thin and unnecessary, as the vitality / hit points don't use this accuracy for anything at all. Västmark manages greater detail with a single D10.

"Attack bonus is determined by the combination of attack bonuses of all classes. You get extra an extra attack everytime your base"

Which is cumbersome, as there is no reason why skill at swordery should be different from skill at something else.

"Make up your mind. First, it's demonstratably mathematically inferior, now it's an art. First a good system is a well-defined thing, now it's arbitrary. Are you going to try and make up your mind on this anytime soon?"

I have already, you just seem incapable of getting the point. Systems construction is an art and a science, as is architecture, as is engineering. Ask anyone practicing such professions. You may learn something.

"We are discussing D&D, not D20."

No. YOU are desperately trying to discuss D&D, despite me having stated time and again that I know nothing about the system. Despite discussing d20. Despite this thread being about Sci Fi Role Playing. Despite me informing you that the discussion didn't concern D&D, which you snipped and ignored. You dishonest piece of shit.

"In order for an opinion to be backed up by fact and logic, you first need to have some actual fact and logic. I've seen some logic, and no facts."

There's nothing more to give, Anton. Enjoy the spoils, I'm giving up on you.

[Graeme Dice]

Graeme, you're starting to piss me off. You know I have no experience with D&D. You know I haven't read it. And yet you continually bring back D&D into the discussion. I suspect you're looking for a way out.

"D20 (Henceforth known as D&D) works best in a pure fantasy setting, where you want your characters to be able to shrug off hits like a T-800 after a while. This doesn't work however, in a setting where the combat is supposed to be lethal."

I haven't been "trying" to bring D&D into this discussion, I've been talking about it exclusively the entire time.

It's easy enough to do as a mental exercise, anyway. Take one good system. Change every "roll one dice" to "roll one dice, double the value, then halve it". The system will be slower, yet do the same things.

The system will be no slower, because anyone with any sense will remove the extraneous math. It's also not the same system, because the rules are different.

No, I said that a system's quality can be described mathematically. I never claimed to be able to describe it that way. I also didn't claim to be able to unite it into a formula.

If you can't reduce it to some kind of equation, then you can't describe it mathematically. If you can't reduce it to a mathematical description, then your claim that it is possible is pointless.

Again, I never claimed to be able to do this. I said it was doable to describe its quality in mathematical terms. Terms like numbers. Speed. Flexibility. But you just made that little logical leap, apparently from a desire to emulate Elim.

Would you care to insult me anymore when I defend a game system you haven't even played?

Why, then, is the D&D "system" marketed with the big sticker marked "d20"?

It isn't. There is no such logo on any of my source books.

Why do Wizards of the Coast claim that "d20 is the name for the set of game mechanics that makes D&D go."? That descibes an engine, Graeme. Like to backpedal some more?

No, I'd like you to stop attacking systems you haven't read.

Wrong. The universe can be described in mathematical terms. Just because something obeys the laws of mathematics doesn't mean I have to be able to UNDERSTAND those laws, silly one.

Then don't claim that the system can be mathematically shown to be inferior if you can't do it.

It could be, and would make the system less ambigous and thus more flexible. I said could be because there are other ways of fixing the problem, not because there isn't a problem, Graeme.

"Like what, rolling percentile dice? They already exist."

Not in the d20 I know. But that was what I meant, roughly.

"Because some types of attacks aren't as dangerous as others. If you don't understand why 4d4 is different than 2d8, and both are different than 1d20-4, then you have no real place judging the probabilities of actions."

Oh, stop avoiding my points, Graeme. Even a twit can see that those probability ranges are far too thin and unnecessary, as the vitality / hit points don't use this accuracy for anything at all.

Right. You don't understand the probability curves then. 4d4 has an average of 10 and a very small distribution, 2d8 has an average of 9 and a larger distribution, 1d20-4 has an average between 6.5 and 8.5 depending on what you do with the numbers less than one, and every number is as likely as every other.

Västmark manages greater detail with a single D10.

Vastmark isn't in English. How is referencing it as a better source going to help someone who only speaks one language?

"Attack bonus is determined by the combination of attack bonuses of all classes. You get extra an extra attack everytime your base"

Which is cumbersome, as there is no reason why skill at swordery should be different from skill at something else.

Your opinion. In my opinion the system works fine because levels are only going to increase every four to five sessions or more anyways. Your argument boils down to "It's not realistic". My response is that "I don't care if it's not realistic."

I have already, you just seem incapable of getting the point. Systems construction is an art and a science, as is architecture, as is engineering. Ask anyone practicing such professions. You may learn something.

You claimed that a purely mathematical representation of quality was possible. If that is the case, then there is no need for art in the construction. Anythign that can be purely described by math can be created purely by math.

No. YOU are desperately trying to discuss D&D, despite me having stated time and again that I know nothing about the system. Despite discussing d20.

I'm not discussing D20, and never have been. From the very first message in this thread I stated that I was discussing D&D only. You are trying desperately to discuss d20 when I have stated time and again that I'm not interested in such a discussion and have already conceeded it.

Despite this thread being about Sci Fi Role Playing.

The thread's title is ultimately irrelevant when I've made it clear from the very beginning that I am only discussing the self-contained world of D&D.

Despite me informing you that the discussion didn't concern D&D, which you snipped and ignored. You dishonest piece of shit.

The discussion concerns D&D because you have argued that D&D is somehow an inferior system, and that this is a fact based on your own opinion.

"In order for an opinion to be backed up by fact and logic, you first need to have some actual fact and logic. I've seen some logic, and no facts."

There's nothing more to give, Anton. Enjoy the spoils, I'm giving up on you.

[/quote]
Care to poison the well a bit more?

[Alyrium Denryle]

The way I DM D&D is that hit points represent, not the characters ability to take damage, but there ability twist thier bodies in such a fashion that weapons dont hit vitals, they therefor avoid damage not absorb it.

there are also feats I will not let my pcs take, as they make no sense. I modified great cleave so that they may never kill more aponents in that fashion than thier dex mods.

I also up saving throws. I create evil sorcerers with insane charisma bonuses so that thier base save is very high. I also give them huge constitution scores and dex scores, and magic items yup the wazzoo.


For example I dont roll npc stats they are the absolute peak of thier species

Azeroth

level 11 chaotic evil human sorcerer hp111 armor class 23 (in combat after haste shield and ghost armor 36)

st 18
dex 25
con 25
int 18
wis 18
char 26

melee attack bonus+9
ranged+12

skills
spellcraft+17
concentration+17
jump+17
tumble+20
balance+20
spot+17
listin+17
search+17

feats
weapon proficiency great scythe
dragon blood(gives extra spells known per level equal to his char mod)
power attack
whirlwind attack
school focus evocation

Weapons
+2 great scythe (casts true strike 3 times per day) 4d4+6 damage


He fooled the party into helping him aquire a powerful artifact, he then apon sucess betrayed them. he cast his spells and charged the paries fighter. he jumped on the the mans chest and decapitated him with a call shot to the neck; He then reanimated him as an 11 HD undead and wiped out that adventuring party.

At least how I Dm my battles are not cakewalks

[Pendragon]

And that is not playing instruments? Can they use a boom box?

Is a boom box going to give magical bonuses to party members?

I dunno, perhaps if its a bard that hits "play"?
My point, that you made a fabulous job of missing, is that one of the bards main things IS playing instruments.

You know, it would be a lot easier if you picked a side... Interesting or not, make up your mind.
And since 99% of D&D combat is "he hits you for X hitpoints, you have X hitpoints left. You hit him for X hit points etc, etc". It devolves from combat into hitpoint subtraction. I have as much fun playing with a cheap calculator.

That's too bad for you then. I enjoy the combat.

My personal forms of enjoyment aside, you never did answer my question. Is combat supposed to be interesting or not? Or just vital, but uninteresting?

More supplements = better game?

Yes, it does. It makes the job of the GM easier.

"More supplements = better gamesystem", I edited this just after I posted, makes all the difference. Since you were quick enough to quote me before I managed to correct it, Ill give you a chance to answer again.

And since you think more supplements makes a game better, I can create a piss poor game and make it the best in the world if I release enough supplements, right? Is quantity better than quality?

The amount of spells has nothing to do with the system itself. Youre diverting the issue.

The amount of spells has everything to do with the system, because they are an integral part of it. The interaction between protection and defensive spells is a perfect example of this.

Perhaps, but do you need ten tomes of spells to acheive this?

I'd say Palladiumbooks games have a wider spell selection than youll ever need, if D&D' is even wider its probably uneccesarily much.

So how many pages of spells are there in a book that includes nothing but them from Rifts?

*sigh*
Why number of pages of spells? I can fit every damn D&D spell into one page, if the print is fine enough and the page is big enough.
If you want an exact spell count I'm afraid I cant humour you at this time since its late and im going to bed, but I will point wich ones of the rifts books I own contain new spells, besides the main book.

Conversion Book One (Warlocks and a few spells of legend).
World Book 2: Atlantis (Stone magic and Tatoo magic, although the latter arent spells per se)
World Book 3: England (Temporal magic)
World Book 4: Africa (Necromancy)
World Book 6: South America (Biomancy)
World Book 7: Underseas (Ocean magic and Whale spell songs)
World Book 9: South America 2 (Line magic)
World Book 14: The new west (Cloud magic)
World Book 15: Spirit West (Fetish magic)
World Book 16: Federation of Magic (tonnes more "conventional" spells)
World Book 18: Mystic Russia (Russian Fire Magic, Nature Magic, and Russian Witchcraft)
Dimension Book 1: Wormwood (Symbiotic magic, Crystal magic)

Thats the ones I own that contain more spells. If youre interested in other books and wether they contain more magic, check Palladiumbooks.com. I trust you will find that Rifts has a lot of spells... and then ill just reminfd you that the spells for other Palladium games are compatible as well. Id say thats a fairly wide selection. I know in the roughly 8 years weve been playing it, we still only scratched the surface when it comes to spell and magic, and I dont even own all the books!

But since youre whining ill point out that the swedsih fantasy game "Drakar och Demoner" (similar name but has nothing to do with D&D) has a wide enough spell selection that I doubt that we've ever used 25% of all the spells in our several campaigns (weve been playing it off and on for over 10 years). I dont really see the point of adding even more spells to that, but if you really want to there are quick and easy guidelines (rather than actual rules) for doing so, both for the PC's and the GM.

Unless a translation exists, the number of spells in a Swedish system is entirely irrelevant to the number in an English system.

And that would be because...? If its not in english its not valid? Its not a real game unless its in english?
Were not discussing the merits of game systems in english, but game systems in general.
Or are you afraid id lie to you and make up a gamesystem just to win an argument? Thats sad.
Oh well, want confirmation? My advice, go to www.rollspel.com, contact them, ask for Anders Blixt. He's one of the main writers for the game up until version 4.0 (the one we play now, wich is now tragically OOP). If he cant/wont answer your questions and is unable or unwilling to direct you to someone who can, try www.rollspel.nu, the Drakar och Demoner forum. If you cant find an answer there, then I'll concede the point. And thats generous of me.
Calling something worthless because you lack the skills the understand it is just plain arrogant and ignorant.

[Graeme Dice]

I dunno, perhaps if its a bard that hits "play"?
My point, that you made a fabulous job of missing, is that one of the bards main things IS playing instruments.

And so is pickpocketing, casting spells, and combat. A boom box isn't an instrument anyways.

My personal forms of enjoyment aside, you never did answer my question. Is combat supposed to be interesting or not? Or just vital, but uninteresting?

Combat should be interesting. I find D&D combat interesting. You apparently don't.

"More supplements = better gamesystem", I edited this just after I posted, makes all the difference. Since you were quick enough to quote me before I managed to correct it, Ill give you a chance to answer again.

No, more supplements does not make a gamesystem better. It does however, make it easier to use.

And since you think more supplements makes a game better, I can create a piss poor game and make it the best in the world if I release enough supplements, right? Is quantity better than quality?

Quality in quantity is better than quality alone.

Conceeded on the magic issue.

And that would be because...? If its not in english its not valid? Its not a real game unless its in english?

Were not discussing the merits of game systems in english, but game systems in general.

Why bother to inform me that a better system exists, with the intent that I should be swayed to use it, if I can't even read the system?

Calling something worthless because you lack the skills the understand it is just plain arrogant and ignorant.

Bzzzzt. The system is worthless to me. I can't speak swedish, I don't even know what it sounds like. How is a system that is only available in a language I am completely unable to decipher going to be of any worth to me?[/quote]

[Pendragon]

I dunno, perhaps if its a bard that hits "play"?
My point, that you made a fabulous job of missing, is that one of the bards main things IS playing instruments.

And so is pickpocketing, casting spells, and combat. A boom box isn't an instrument anyways.

But why did you claim that playing instruments wasnt any of the other classes main things?

My personal forms of enjoyment aside, you never did answer my question. Is combat supposed to be interesting or not? Or just vital, but uninteresting?

Combat should be interesting. I find D&D combat interesting. You apparently don't.

Damn right I dont, thats pretty clear. Where you stand though is funny, since you claim that most combat should be walkovers, but interesting. How the HELL do you make a walkover interesting?

"More supplements = better gamesystem", I edited this just after I posted, makes all the difference. Since you were quick enough to quote me before I managed to correct it, Ill give you a chance to answer again.

No, more supplements does not make a gamesystem better. It does however, make it easier to use.

Well my main experience with D&D supplements was for 2ed (AD&D). The supplements made it anything but easier to use, with pointless special rules that slowed down a system where basically the only merit was that it was fast (ie the rounds moved along quickly, combat took forever once you gota decent AC and over 40 hitpoints) without managing to add much detail.

And since you think more supplements makes a game better, I can create a piss poor game and make it the best in the world if I release enough supplements, right? Is quantity better than quality?

Quality in quantity is better than quality alone.

Wow... If you were a superhero, you'd be "stating-the-obvious boy"...
Let me spell it out for you, read it slowly...

IF you had to choose between:
1. Lots of supplements of mediocre quality(=QUANTITY)
and
2. A small number of supplements (=QUALITY)

What would you pick? And this time, just pick one.

Conceeded on the magic issue.

Thank you.

And that would be because...? If its not in english its not valid? Its not a real game unless its in english?

Were not discussing the merits of game systems in english, but game systems in general.

Why bother to inform me that a better system exists, with the intent that I should be swayed to use it, if I can't even read the system?

Hello? Im trying to get you to look at ANYTHING in particular apart from the fact that D&D is not a very good game, its just the biggest. Im not trying to sway you to something else in particular, rather sway you away from D&D.

Calling something worthless because you lack the skills the understand it is just plain arrogant and ignorant.

Bzzzzt. The system is worthless to me. I can't speak swedish, I don't even know what it sounds like. How is a system that is only available in a language I am completely unable to decipher going to be of any worth to me?

[/quote]

'Bout time you leared so you could get a decent game then...

My point was... to make you look past what takes up the most shelfspace. There are many better systems and settings out there, wich dont get a chance cos evryone go for the biggest most visible one. IMNAAHO Wotc is the Microsoft of RPG's.

[Graeme Dice]

But why did you claim that playing instruments wasnt any of the other classes main things?

Because it isn't. No other class gets combat bonuses from playing music.

Damn right I dont, thats pretty clear. Where you stand though is funny, since you claim that most combat should be walkovers, but interesting. How the HELL do you make a walkover interesting?

There's a difference between combat not being lethal, and combat being a walkover. There are other resources to expend than lives.

Wow... If you were a superhero, you'd be "stating-the-obvious boy"...
Let me spell it out for you, read it slowly...

IF you had to choose between:
1. Lots of supplements of mediocre quality(=QUANTITY)
and
2. A small number of supplements (=QUALITY)

What would you pick? And this time, just pick one.

Neither of the above applies to D&D. In a vacuum, I would pick 2.

Hello? Im trying to get you to look at ANYTHING in particular apart from the fact that D&D is not a very good game, its just the biggest. Im not trying to sway you to something else in particular, rather sway you away from D&D.

I'm not going to buy rulebooks to systems just to check them out. I don't have that kind of money. If I'm going to look at a different system, I need a reason not to use a system I already like.

My point was... to make you look past what takes up the most shelfspace. There are many better systems and settings out there, wich dont get a chance cos evryone go for the biggest most visible one. IMNAAHO Wotc is the Microsoft of RPG's.

Did I ever argue that D&D was the best system? No, I argued that it was a good enough system.

[Pendragon]

But why did you claim that playing instruments wasnt any of the other classes main things?

Because it isn't. No other class gets combat bonuses from playing music.

No matter the bonuses... his thing is still PLAYING INSTRUMENTS!
Yes or no?

Damn right I dont, thats pretty clear. Where you stand though is funny, since you claim that most combat should be walkovers, but interesting. How the HELL do you make a walkover interesting?

There's a difference between combat not being lethal, and combat being a walkover. There are other resources to expend than lives.

If combat isnt lethal, then what is the difference between fighting a horde of goblins to participating in Barroom brawl?

Wow... If you were a superhero, you'd be "stating-the-obvious boy"...
Let me spell it out for you, read it slowly...

IF you had to choose between:
1. Lots of supplements of mediocre quality(=QUANTITY)
and
2. A small number of supplements (=QUALITY)

What would you pick? And this time, just pick one.

Neither of the above applies to D&D. In a vacuum, I would pick 2.

Therefore we agree that good supplements are better than lots of them. Concession accepted.

Hello? Im trying to get you to look at ANYTHING in particular apart from the fact that D&D is not a very good game, its just the biggest. Im not trying to sway you to something else in particular, rather sway you away from D&D.

I'm not going to buy rulebooks to systems just to check them out. I don't have that kind of money.

Be a cheapskate like evryone else, read them in the bookstore, see if you like them. Ask around.
It seems to me youre too damn conservative to ever play anything but D&D. Wich would explain your blissful ignorance of D&D's shortcomings. You seem to have none or little to compare with.

If I'm going to look at a different system, I need a reason not to use a system I already like.

If you had ever looked at different system, you would have plenty of reasons. Even palladium is better.

My point was... to make you look past what takes up the most shelfspace. There are many better systems and settings out there, wich dont get a chance cos evryone go for the biggest most visible one. IMNAAHO Wotc is the Microsoft of RPG's.

Did I ever argue that D&D was the best system? No, I argued that it was a good enough system.

Compared to what?

[nightmare]

I RP at http://imperialrpg.cjb.net.

I even found it via this site.