DM corner: Classless D&D

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

One thing I always contemplate about the D&D system as it stands today is
classes. Why? Because one of my players is such a metagamer, that as
soon as he sees a person do something he instantly tries to pidgeon hole
that person into a D&D class, e.g., he goes to the temple of the Heironious
and outside are two platemail clad knights. As he tries to get in, one of
them talks to him and asks some questions whilst the other "peers intently
at him in a discerning manner". Net result, my player instantly decides
these are paladins (doing detect evil) and starts asking if they can heal
him please? How annoying! (especially as he was right of course!). The
paladin sort of looked at him as if to say "how do you know we can do that"
and he started going on about "I've heard of these mystical knights who can
sense evil - they can also heal and ...." (and might as well have listed a
shopping list of things paladins can do!).

Okay, rant over.

The point is that 3rd edition D&D has gone a long way to improve this with
arcane spell failure and still spell feats and armour check penalties and
armour proficiency feats. Its now perfectly possible to have a platemail
wearing wizard/rogue who wields a two handed sword. Brilliant stuff! But
its still not quite there because all paladins can turn undead and lay on
hands and detect evil. I'd like to be able to play in a game system where
having one of these abilities doesn't instantly get you recognised (at least
by the players) as a paladin (or whatever) and shoved into that little
pidgeon hole.

To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for a new
campaign.

It would basically be based on D&D as it is now. Everyone still has levels,
still has all the same stats and BAB and saves and skills and feats and class
abilities, but class abilities would be in a big pool and available to all
characters/people. So when you level up you gain a certain amount of points
to spend buying BAB increases and 1d10 HD or 1d4 HD, and N number of skill
points and N feats, and +1 reflex save and so on. You could buy +1 level
of wizard spell casting (so you'd still have caster levels as now). Obviously
buying +1 level of wizard spell casting would be expensive compared to +1
level of lay on hands for example. I know working out comparitive costs
of these abilities would be tough to balance, but it could be done.

And you'd end up with a system whereby a character could wield a long sword,
wear platemail, cast wizard spells and lay on hands, plus wildshape into an
animal form - and no one would have any idea what someone could do, just
because they used a special ability.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

weberm@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote in message news:<cnm8ml$ce1$8@news.utelfla.com>...
> One thing I always contemplate about the D&D system as it stands today is
> classes. Why? Because one of my players is such a metagamer, that as
> soon as he sees a person do something he instantly tries to pidgeon hole
> that person into a D&D class, e.g., he goes to the temple of the Heironious
> and outside are two platemail clad knights. As he tries to get in, one of
> them talks to him and asks some questions whilst the other "peers intently
> at him in a discerning manner". Net result, my player instantly decides
> these are paladins (doing detect evil) and starts asking if they can heal
> him please? How annoying! (especially as he was right of course!). The
> paladin sort of looked at him as if to say "how do you know we can do that"
> and he started going on about "I've heard of these mystical knights who can
> sense evil - they can also heal and ...." (and might as well have listed a
> shopping list of things paladins can do!).

I don't quite see the problem. I think that the ability to "pigeonhole"
characters is, in fact, a good thing, because it makes it possible to
devise sensible tactics and otherwise anticipate things in the game
world.

For example: an NPC casts Fireball on the group. Well, that's a wizard
then; best get the archer to ready to interrupt him. In your proposed
world, he could just be a fighter with "Fireball 1/day", and tactics
would be a matter of mere chance. Not good.

A fantasy world is good when it's somewhat clear what people are
capable of, and not everything is "up in the air". Makes planning
possible.

> It would basically be based on D&D as it is now. Everyone still has levels,
> still has all the same stats and BAB and saves and skills and feats and class
> abilities, but class abilities would be in a big pool and available to all
> characters/people. So when you level up you gain a certain amount of points
> to spend buying BAB increases and 1d10 HD or 1d4 HD, and N number of skill
> points and N feats, and +1 reflex save and so on. You could buy +1 level
> of wizard spell casting (so you'd still have caster levels as now). Obviously
> buying +1 level of wizard spell casting would be expensive compared to +1
> level of lay on hands for example. I know working out comparitive costs
> of these abilities would be tough to balance, but it could be done.

I'll make a bet with you; make any system of that nature that you like,
and one of three things will happen:

1) There will be several Core classes you won't be able to create anymore
with the "points" system.
2) It'll be incredibly restrictive, and largely pointless.
3) I can make an utterly broken character with the system within half
an hour of seeing it.

You see, the problem is that you won't be able to compensate for
"synergetic" skills and abilities. A simple example: if you have a
poor Reflex save, then the Evasion ability isn't very good. If you
have a good Reflex save, it's much better. So giving a fixed
"point cost" to Evasion won't work well, because it will either be
too weak if you don't buy a good Reflex save to go with it, or too
powerful if you do.

There are, of course, several ways around that; like I said, that's
just a simple example. There are far more complicated synergies, and
you won't be able to account for them all. What'll happen is that a
good min/maxer (like modest ol' me) will be able to take abilities
that synergize in subtle (or not-so-subtle) ways, and create a
massively overpowered character.

> And you'd end up with a system whereby a character could wield a long sword,
> wear platemail, cast wizard spells and lay on hands, plus wildshape into an
> animal form - and no one would have any idea what someone could do, just
> because they used a special ability.
>
> Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.
It will also make the game world less fun and interesting. I would
strongly advise against it.

If you insist on trying, though, I'll be happy to check out the
balance. My min/maxing skills could use the workout.

Laszlo
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

> I don't quite see the problem. I think that the ability to
> "pigeonhole" characters is, in fact, a good thing, because it makes it
> possible to devise sensible tactics and otherwise anticipate things in
> the game world.

One problem I see is the wonder in the gameplay is gone. A good DM can
find ways to awe his/her players, but it's getting harder and harder.
It's also hard to roleplay the new kid who just arrived from the village
with his father's sword from the war years. I, as a player know a lot
more than my PC. i can roleplay my PC's wonder of the ways of the world
well, but my mind automatically converts 'an exploding flash of the
hottest fore you've ever seen washes over you' to a 5d6 fireball.
Admittedly, the second is much more boring than the first.

Oh well. Kids grow. Reality sinks in. 🙁

If you're not sure of the capabilities of the opposition, it becomes a
different game. However, as you've said, it would be very hard to
implement this without detracting from other fun aspects of the game.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

Hallo,

> It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
> actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
> how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.

What an interesting notion. I've _never_ encountered this in a group.

Larry
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On 20 Nov 2004 05:05:56 -0800, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu (Laszlo)
wrote:

>It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
>actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
>how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.

Everyone? Let me think. In the last one I ran, I had a mage who
couldn't fight (nonmagically) at all, a fighter with everything thrown
into strength so he could kill all of his opponents with one blow, a
"fighter/thief", an archer, and a fighter with leadership attributes.

Not a single fighter/mage.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu (Laszlo) wrote:
>
>>It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
>>actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
>>how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.
>
> Everyone? Let me think. In the last one I ran, I had a mage who
> couldn't fight (nonmagically) at all, a fighter with everything thrown
> into strength so he could kill all of his opponents with one blow, a
> "fighter/thief", an archer, and a fighter with leadership attributes.
>
> Not a single fighter/mage.

My guess would be that he's thinking of single-player, single-character
CRPGs, where it is indeed common for people to develop something like a
fighter/mage. But that's a very different situation than a typical D&D
session.

--
ZZzz |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efindel@earthlink.net>
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On 20 Nov 2004 05:05:56 -0800, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu (Laszlo) wrote:

>For example: an NPC casts Fireball on the group. Well, that's a wizard
>then; best get the archer to ready to interrupt him. In your proposed
>world, he could just be a fighter with "Fireball 1/day", and tactics
>would be a matter of mere chance. Not good.
>
>A fantasy world is good when it's somewhat clear what people are
>capable of, and not everything is "up in the air". Makes planning
>possible.

Please not to be silly. The only things that you need to be able to plan
are a consistent ruleset and consistent GMing. Or are you suggesting that
people who play HERO, GURPS, et al just charge in blindly every time they
get into a fight?


--
Hong Ooi | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
hong@zipworld.com.au | STRATEGY GAME!!!"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- RR
Sydney, Australia |
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

"Hong Ooi" <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote:
>
> Or are you suggesting that
> people who play HERO, GURPS, et al just charge in blindly every time they
> get into a fight?

He's probably thinking of my Champions group :-o


--
David Meadows
I've got nothing to say today
I used my words up yesterday
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

Hong Ooi <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message news:<g6hup0t5ucm2ou7r3i04rd0hu2f8ubffp0@4ax.com>...
> On 20 Nov 2004 05:05:56 -0800, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu (Laszlo) wrote:
>
> >For example: an NPC casts Fireball on the group. Well, that's a wizard
> >then; best get the archer to ready to interrupt him. In your proposed
> >world, he could just be a fighter with "Fireball 1/day", and tactics
> >would be a matter of mere chance. Not good.
> >
> >A fantasy world is good when it's somewhat clear what people are
> >capable of, and not everything is "up in the air". Makes planning
> >possible.
>
> Please not to be silly.

If you take away my silly... you take away that which makes me HUMAN.

I will never bow to your demands. NEVER.

Laszlo
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

"Plans only last until first contact with the enemy." That's why my
group never plan fights. Wastes too much time.

David Meadows wrote:
> "Hong Ooi" <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Or are you suggesting that
>>people who play HERO, GURPS, et al just charge in blindly every time they
>>get into a fight?
>
>
> He's probably thinking of my Champions group :-o
>
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

In article <dXJnd.56011$Ho4.1893983@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Shawn Corey <shawn.corey@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>"Plans only last until first contact with the enemy." That's why my
>group never plan fights. Wastes too much time.

That rings depressingly true, IME every time a group plans at least 3/4
of the session is taken up in heated debate, resulting in a plan that
is rendered moot by the next plot twist:-(



--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:08:17 -0500, Shawn Corey
<shawn.corey@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"Plans only last until first contact with the enemy." That's why my
>group never plan fights. Wastes too much time.

All the best fights I've seen won in RPGs have been well-planned. All
the worst fights I've experienced were not planned.

My experience is diametrically opposed to yours'.

PS: By "best fights" - I mean those with least casualties and greatest
success.

>David Meadows wrote:
>> "Hong Ooi" <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>Or are you suggesting that
>>>people who play HERO, GURPS, et al just charge in blindly every time they
>>>get into a fight?
>>
>>
>> He's probably thinking of my Champions group :-o
>>
>>
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

weberm@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
<snip>
> To that end, I'm wondering about designing a classless D&D system for a new
> campaign.

You might look at BESM d20. It's a point-build system that mostly just differs under the hood, and lists point costs for saves, Base Attack, existing class abilities, and a bunch of non-sword-and-sorcery abilities from BESM. (It slants its costs away from combat, where D&D is usually slanted at combat, but that's fairly easy to change.) It also has a "classless class", lacking class abilities, with a big pool of unspent points.

- Dare, GURPSist extraordinaire and plenipotentiary

* "You sound reasonable...Time to up my medication."
* Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours! :)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

Zenobia wrote:
>
> All the best fights I've seen won in RPGs have been well-planned. All
> the worst fights I've experienced were not planned.
>
> My experience is diametrically opposed to yours'.
>
> PS: By "best fights" - I mean those with least casualties and greatest
> success.

I never said we fought well.

--- Shawn
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

Out from under a rock popped David Meadows and said

> "Hong Ooi" <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Or are you suggesting that
>> people who play HERO, GURPS, et al just charge in blindly every time
>> they get into a fight?
>
> He's probably thinking of my Champions group :-o

Sounds like a lot of the groups I've been in. Generally they keep my
character around to do the thinking that gets them to the fight.

--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

Laszlo wrote:
[Ubi proposes a "classless D&D"]
[...]
> It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
> actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
> how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.
> It will also make the game world less fun and interesting. I would
> strongly advise against it.
[...]

You, and others, seem to assume that the alternative to
D&D3-style character classes is an ultra-egalitarian rules
system under which everybody has the exact same development
potential.

But there is a third alternative: A system offerering
several (at least more than two, as in GURPS) important
attributes, that affects the speed with which the character
develops in various directions.

This leaves characters free to go everywhere, while at the
same time the effect emerges from such a system that
individual characters will have high and low probabilities
for going in particular directions. For instance, a
character with low Agility and low Dexterity might be
forced, by circumstances, to attend melee weapon training
for some weeks or months, even though he won't benefit from
it. But as soon as he can get free, he will run away and
seek development better suited to his nature.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

"Laszlo" <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:36c239a1.0411200505.54caf3e@posting.google.com...

> It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
> actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
> how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.

Nonsense.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On 20 Nov 2004 05:05:56 -0800, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu (Laszlo)
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I'll make a bet with you; make any system of that nature that you like,
> and one of three things will happen:
>
> 1) There will be several Core classes you won't be able to create anymore
> with the "points" system.

If all their abilities are in the pool you will be able to. However,
to get any sort of balance you'll probably need some special extra
costs and/or cost-breaks for some combos.

> You see, the problem is that you won't be able to compensate for
> "synergetic" skills and abilities. A simple example: if you have a
> poor Reflex save, then the Evasion ability isn't very good. If you
> have a good Reflex save, it's much better. So giving a fixed
> "point cost" to Evasion won't work well, because it will either be
> too weak if you don't buy a good Reflex save to go with it, or too
> powerful if you do.
>
> There are, of course, several ways around that; like I said, that's
> just a simple example. There are far more complicated synergies, and
> you won't be able to account for them all. What'll happen is that a
> good min/maxer (like modest ol' me) will be able to take abilities
> that synergize in subtle (or not-so-subtle) ways, and create a
> massively overpowered character.

Only compared to non-optimised characters.

> It's a bad idea that also happens to be largely unworkable. It will
> actually _decrease_ the number of viable character builds, just like
> how in "classless" CRPGs, everyone always ends up as a fighter/mage.

They do?


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

In article <8gr0q0188a53s1cmd660kpr4pgv9q1sics@4ax.com>,
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> Only compared to non-optimised characters.

And there is the rub. Optimized characters versus non-optimized
characters.

In many games optimized characters tend to fall into a very small range,
especially once all the costs and benefits from each set of skills and
abilities are rigorously defined. And this is usually defined in terms
of combat.

Boooring.

I'd drive min-maxers and optimizers crazy by creating "interesting
characters" that were far from being combat monsters but were, horrors
of horrors, interesting from a roleplaying perspective.

Like my Gurps alcoholic mage, who only had one good spell, (non-combat,
he could fortell the future in dreams) and his other spells were
centered around getting alcohol. He'd use a dehydrate spell to turn of
jug of cheap wine into some powerful popskull.

Or one player who cranked out horrendously optimized Gurps characters
that were near godlike in their capabilities when he was allowed to use
any of the supplemental books, and even when limited to the main book,
he had several characters down pat that all had the nearly the same
abilities and skills.

Basically to eliminate some of the things you can spend points on. Like
rolling for stats like Strength, Dexterity, etc. or getting rid of
buying a flaw for extra points. Flaws should be roleplayed, not "roll
played" as most are.

--
The Kedamono Dragon
Pull Pinky's favorite words to email me.
http://www.ahtg.net
Have Mac, will Compute

Check out the PowerPointers Shop at:
http://www.cafeshops.com/PowerPointers
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

"John Reiher" <kedamono.Poit@Narf.mac.com> wrote in message
news:kedamono.Poit-A620E3.19593321112004@text-west.newsfeeds.com...
> In article <8gr0q0188a53s1cmd660kpr4pgv9q1sics@4ax.com>,
> Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> Only compared to non-optimised characters.
>
> And there is the rub. Optimized characters versus non-optimized
> characters.
>
> In many games optimized characters tend to fall into a very small range,
> especially once all the costs and benefits from each set of skills and
> abilities are rigorously defined. And this is usually defined in terms
> of combat.
>
> Boooring.
>
> I'd drive min-maxers and optimizers crazy by creating "interesting
> characters" that were far from being combat monsters but were, horrors
> of horrors, interesting from a roleplaying perspective.
>
> Like my Gurps alcoholic mage, who only had one good spell, (non-combat,
> he could fortell the future in dreams) and his other spells were
> centered around getting alcohol. He'd use a dehydrate spell to turn of
> jug of cheap wine into some powerful popskull.

Why did the group include your character as a member? What was the purpose
of the group?

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

In article <Plpod.446263$D%.396969@attbi_s51>,
"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Like my Gurps alcoholic mage, who only had one good spell, (non-combat,
> > he could fortell the future in dreams) and his other spells were
> > centered around getting alcohol. He'd use a dehydrate spell to turn of
> > jug of cheap wine into some powerful popskull.
>
> Why did the group include your character as a member? What was the purpose
> of the group?

You may have a point there. There was no "purpose" for the group, other
than we were new residents in the town. My character set up a fortune
teller business and scammed the locals, another person... well I don't
think the others tried to actually get jobs. My alcoholic mage was the
only one who did have a regular income and he had a better grasp of what
was going in the town than the others.

We were sort of thrown together as a group, when we had to face some
zombies. Only my character had a spell that could hurt the zombies, but
his spell points were low due to him being three sheets to the wind,
that he passed out during combat and had to be dragged to safety.

This campaign didn't last much longer as the GM didn't have a good idea
of what he wanted to do in the game.

--
The Kedamono Dragon
Pull Pinky's favorite words to email me.
http://www.ahtg.net
Have Mac, will Compute

Check out the PowerPointers Shop at:
http://www.cafeshops.com/PowerPointers
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:59:34 -0800, John Reiher
<kedamono.Poit@Narf.mac.com> wrote:

>Like my Gurps alcoholic mage, who only had one good spell, (non-combat,
>he could fortell the future in dreams) and his other spells were
>centered around getting alcohol. He'd use a dehydrate spell to turn of
>jug of cheap wine into some powerful popskull.

So he was comic relief. Note, by the way that nothing about this
character design precludes optimisation. Just because a character is
useless doesn't mean he has to waste points.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

In article <41a22d73.82267235@news.telusplanet.net>,
rgormannospam@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:59:34 -0800, John Reiher
> <kedamono.Poit@Narf.mac.com> wrote:
>
> >Like my Gurps alcoholic mage, who only had one good spell, (non-combat,
> >he could fortell the future in dreams) and his other spells were
> >centered around getting alcohol. He'd use a dehydrate spell to turn of
> >jug of cheap wine into some powerful popskull.
>
> So he was comic relief. Note, by the way that nothing about this
> character design precludes optimisation. Just because a character is
> useless doesn't mean he has to waste points.

Comic relief? Hahahaha! Because of his powers, my character was only one
who had a feel for the citizens of the town, and his dreams foretold of
the evil that was about to assault the place. He even knew where this
evil was based and was the only one with spells that could hurt the
minions of this evil! Talk about being between a rock and hard place.

Once the other players realized that my character was the only one who
had any chance against this evil, they did their best to get my
character sober... But the reason why my character became an alcoholic
was because of his powers to foretell the future. He had foretold his
own death and guess where and what it was...

The game didn't last much longer because the GM really hadn't planned it
out well and our character were either underpowered or overpowered for
the encounters he set up. (He was a DnD DM and decided to switch to
GURPS but hadn't figured out that Gurps was far more lethal than DnD...)

--
The Kedamono Dragon
Pull Pinky's favorite words to email me.
http://www.ahtg.net
Have Mac, will Compute

Check out the PowerPointers Shop at:
http://www.cafeshops.com/PowerPointers
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:59:34 -0800, John Reiher
<kedamono.Poit@Narf.mac.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> In many games optimized characters tend to fall into a very small range,
> especially once all the costs and benefits from each set of skills and
> abilities are rigorously defined. And this is usually defined in terms
> of combat.

IME that's as much an indication of the sort of game that player is
used to as anything else. I tend to optimise my characters, but that
doesn't mean a non-combat one will be good at combat.

> I'd drive min-maxers and optimizers crazy by creating "interesting
> characters" that were far from being combat monsters but were, horrors
> of horrors, interesting from a roleplaying perspective.

That sort of character is, IMO, fine - provided the game is not about
killing monsters and taking their stuff. In the latter case characters
should be competent monster hunters and slayers first, and
'interesting' in other ways second (unless it's a lighthearted game
about a bunch of city-slickers out of their depth, or the like).

> Basically to eliminate some of the things you can spend points on. Like
> rolling for stats like Strength, Dexterity, etc. or getting rid of
> buying a flaw for extra points. Flaws should be roleplayed, not "roll
> played" as most are.

Wouldn't bother me, but you can still optimise (or not) characters in
this environment. The ground rules are a bit different, so the 'sweet
spots' are probably in slightly different places, but they'll still be
there.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

In rec.games.frp.dnd Laszlo <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
> You see, the problem is that you won't be able to compensate for
> "synergetic" skills and abilities. A simple example: if you have a
> poor Reflex save, then the Evasion ability isn't very good. If you
> have a good Reflex save, it's much better. So giving a fixed
> "point cost" to Evasion won't work well, because it will either be
> too weak if you don't buy a good Reflex save to go with it, or too
> powerful if you do.

In the standard rules, Evasion goes with good Reflex saves
(Rogues, Monks). Is is too powerful now?