Square system, round game

[kaomera]

I know, but it rubs me the wrong way. I take it as an insult to all of the other people in the setting who don't happen to be controlled by players, since it leads the players to considering them dumb and useless, and I find it removes any sense of meaning from the power gain when it comes so easily. Mastering a skill or spell should be an achievement, not something that can be taken care of with a few weeks of dungeon crawling.

Both of these issues work both ways. It's OK to insult, denigrate, injure, or even kill characters (both NPCs and PCs). It's not ok to do these things to the players or the DM (of course). If the players are really that dismissive of the NPCs then I think you have to ask them why you even need to be there. If you're just meant to push around monsters on the battlemat for them to kill (or the social equivalent when in town), then they'd be just as well served playing one of several board games that don't require a DM.

"Ease of leveling" is a more thorny issue. It's not just your perception that matters here - although conversely I don't think it's something the DM should be completely unconcerned with. But I really haven't seen many D&D games where the PCs reached their actual zenith of power in a few weeks... You could talk to the players about expected rate of advancement (or even just put your foot down as DM and make the decision yourself), and perhaps setting aside numerical XP in favor of leveling on some other kind of schedule could work.

IME most players don't really, in the end, want to get to the next level as much as they always want to be getting to the next level. There are cool experiences that they want their characters to have, often even if they don't have a good idea of exactly what those experiences will be. But the focus on boosting power levels over any other kind of change can be a bit tough to deal with. I think that in terms of real character growth a lot of players don't really know how to proceed, and there often isn't a lot of really juicy stuff built into most D&D characters anyway. But from the standpoint of having a real and lasting impact on the campaign world, I think it's often more of an issue that the players don't really know what's possible and would tend to equate it with power gain anyway. (Why figure out which rock to move that will bring the whole pile down if you can just go get a bulldozer?)

IME a big part of what makes this hard to deal with directly in D&D is a tendency to look at everything as a balance issue. It's hard to have a constructive conversation when you're talking about how you want the story to progress and the dramatic impact of the PCs' actions, and the players are arguing play-balance. Magic items is an obvious example of this. It's quite possible to run D&D so that you just don't need much if anything in the way of magic stuff, but players are more likely to argue from a standpoint that if you'd just not run it that way (they think) it wouldn't be an issue if they had all their normal toys... Personally I feel that magic items are much more fun when they're special and mean something, and I find that when each character has a list of them that gets completely undermined.

[Knaight]

So the characters have a lot of stuff? So what? Say they each have ten magic items, as long as they don't have 10 rings of wishing, then they won't have stuff for every conceivable thing that might happen. Try not to think of magic items as 'external', but more 'internal' parts of a character.

D&D also is built for the gradual gain of power - or very rapid gain of power, magic items being a part of that. Which is as stated above, an issue.

Not true. You can make a character any way you want too. When you say 'cripples' your sounding like a min/maxing roll player. There is nothing wrong with playing an archer with a dex of 11 or a wizard that is bad at casting spells.

D&D is clearly built for targeting a specific concept, and gradual character improvement within that concept. Multiclassing doesn't interact well with the rest of the system unless careful - see the spell casting mechanics - and the whole monsters, CR, experience, WBL, and other subsystems also encourage mechanical character change that pretty much boils down to "more, better". For some stories, that simply doesn't work.

Any drama needs to have loss and/or failure, or it's pointless. If the good guys can just blink and save the day, why bother playing?

Other then death, you have three big failures to use in the game:

1.Loss of stuff. Simple enough, the magic sword breaks or the ring falls into a volcano or such.
2.Afflictions. Things such as curses and magical effects.
3.Drama stuff. Sure they can kill Mr Bad, but if he kills princess Joy first, then it's a failure.

Points 1 and 2 are basically character penalties, and the third is narrative stuff. FATE, the alternative presented to D&D, provides a very good way to interact with narrative stuff, and handles point 3 significantly better than D&D does, provided that mechanical interaction is desirable. It is also a generic system, which means it can handle far more than D&D can - D&D pretty much sucks at modeling science fiction for example, FATE can handle it. Historical fiction? Same deal. D&D is built for constant improvement, FATE for a back and forth around a point, where the characters may or may not improve over time.

This is a common problem with many players, and most feel the answer is to go 'low magic'. The idea is that a 'gritty, dirty setting is better. But I have a better way to go.....go high magic. This very nicely balances things out. The characters might have tons of magic stuff, but so does everyone else. Even just giving the world common access to low level magic is great.

Why not change the way raising the dead works? Sure the PH says 'snap your fingers' and your alive...but you can change that.

And Divine Politics....make them more active in the world. My gods are, and it works out great.

Yes, because clearly a high magic fantasy setting with active gods is the only setting worth playing. The setting already exists, D&D clearly doesn't fit it, and the options come down to changing the system or changing the setting. Why is changing the setting the better option here?

[Cespenar]

Have you played enough of other systems to see what they do for comparison? There are things D&D doesn't do as well as other systems, at least not without enough tweaking for it to be unrecognizable. D&D can't imitate Fiasco, and won't imitate FATE well.

No, I haven't, and I never said it would do those things better than other systems anyway. I just said that it could also do things that are outside its original genre.

[Knaight]

No, I haven't, and I never said it would do those things better than other systems anyway. I just said that it could also do things that are outside its original genre.

True, but not particularly well unless it is just barely outside. D&D is actually pretty limited as a system, all things considered.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, because clearly a high magic fantasy setting with active gods is the only setting worth playing. The setting already exists, D&D clearly doesn't fit it, and the options come down to changing the system or changing the setting. Why is changing the setting the better option here?

The only reason is that it might be easier to sell to the players.

It's unfortunate, but it appears that in addition to the system/setting mismatch, we likely also have a difference in expectations between DM and players. If the players really do WANT to kill piles of stuff, level up, and ignore the narrative, then we have more difficulties than a single system switch can handle.

Personally, I address such situations by giving them more or less what they want through the conclusion of the arc, then suggesting trying a different sort of game for a bit. A piratical one. Everyone loves pirates. Then, I bust out 7th Sea, with one minor change(spending drama die gets you xp instead of saving them). Now, players are pretty blatantly rewarded for both paying attention to the story and doing narratively interesting things.

Nothing wrong with either hack and slash OR narrative games in my opinion...but I enjoy exposing people to a good mix of both.

[Gullintanni]

Thematically, the game is supposed to be largely about internal strength and things not being what they seem. The former goal is impeded by the heavy gear-dependence imposed by the system, and the latter by how the system forces characters into fixed roles and cripples anyone who tries to change the trajectory of their character's development mid-game. The combat-oriented nature of the game also makes it very difficult to have the players suffer any direct failures that don't result in character deaths...

Within D&D however, if I take away the cleric or the wizard's magic they have little to no ability to achieve much anymore, since the system encourages hyper-specialization to such a degree.

These are the reasons I switched to E6 D&D. In E6, Magic Items are not the solution to every problem, and neither are reality breaking spells. You're much less gear dependent at level 6 as well.

Speaking to hyper-specialization, E6 character progression is by feats. As the E6 primer correctly points out, there are only a certain number of feats you'll ever be able to leverage in any given situation, so at some point, more feats stops meaning more power, and starts meaning power in a greater number of situations. The aforementioned cleric and wizard can branch out much more.

In addition, E6 is a lot more narrative focused. In E6, a CR 10 Pyrohydra is an exceptional challenge. Players will have to bring along potions for resistance to fire, and most likely, bring some of the local town militia to accomplish their goals. 12 Level 1 Fighters with Crossbows will still land a couple of hits every round and mitigate the Hydras rapid healing. You could also have them tossing vials of acid or fire at the parties direction. The result: A narrative where the Hydra is slain, but in the process kills many...not necessarily PCs. There's a sense of community involvement because even though the town guard isn't extremely effective, every point of damage counts when you're so outmatched by a monster of clearly legendary origin.

In this narrative, combat can still feel like a significant loss, if the story's told right, despite the party emerging ultimately victorious. The reason I suggest E6 is because it seems to be able to meet your requirements, while simultaneously satisfying your party's desire to continue in a 3.5 D&D environment.

[Tyndmyr]

These are the reasons I switched to E6 D&D. In E6, Magic Items are not the solution to every problem, and neither are reality breaking spells. You're much less gear dependent at level 6 as well.

Speaking to hyper-specialization, E6 character progression is by feats. As the E6 primer correctly points out, there are only a certain number of feats you'll ever be able to leverage in any given situation, so at some point, more feats stops meaning more power, and starts meaning power in a greater number of situations. The aforementioned cleric and wizard can branch out much more.

I actually disagree with that. I've played E6 a fair bit, and all it really does is changes the speed and type of progression. Anyone with a bit of optimizing sense can find more feats to make him awesome for long enough that it's irrelevant.

If you're a metamagic reducer kind of guy...you know how many possible feats you can pour into a single combo? How many CL boosters?

Also, the various toughnesses stack, and can be taken indefinitely, so that's a fairly trivial refutation.

Also, with decent op-fu and a coupla feats, a pyrohydra isn't a big deal. Last time I DMed E6, my players killed one of those in a single round.

[Gullintanni]

I actually disagree with that. I've played E6 a fair bit, and all it really does is changes the speed and type of progression. Anyone with a bit of optimizing sense can find more feats to make him awesome for long enough that it's irrelevant.

If you're a metamagic reducer kind of guy...you know how many possible feats you can pour into a single combo? How many CL boosters?

Also, the various toughnesses stack, and can be taken indefinitely, so that's a fairly trivial refutation.

Also, with decent op-fu and a coupla feats, a pyrohydra isn't a big deal. Last time I DMed E6, my players killed one of those in a single round.

I suspect my E6 is a lot more limited than yours

There aren't a lot of metamagic reducers available before level 6 in my games. Frankly, you'd be lucky to get one level of metamagic mitigation in one of my games. I also treat CL listed in the DMG as a hard limitation on what kinds of items can be created in the E6 environment...which puts a lot of the standard CL boosters out of reach. Beads of Karma for example are CL 9th, and therefore don't exist.

[Tyndmyr]

I suspect my E6 is a lot more limited than yours

There aren't a lot of metamagic reducers available before level 6 in my games. Frankly, you'd be lucky to get one level of metamagic mitigation in one of my games. I also treat CL listed in the DMG as a hard limitation on what kinds of items can be created in the E6 environment...which puts a lot of the standard CL boosters out of reach. Beads of Karma for example are CL 9th, and therefore don't exist.

Why would it matter if they were available pre level six? They're almost all feats. So, at level six, you gleefully slap Arcane Thesis on something and start taking metamagic feats. Fireball can be pretty crazy in E6 with some metamagics. That's pretty strict RAW, too. You don't even need the other reducers unless you want flexibility.

And since it gives you a whopping +2 to CL of that spell, all you need is a reserve feat, and you've hit CL 9. This unlocks further CL boosters like Craft Magic Tattoo.

So, a maximized CL 10 fire/cold/etc ball pretty much tends to solve all sorts of problems. If not, quicken another one.

I'm ignoring all the RAW legal ways of getting spells >3rd level, but those are also quite potent.

On the melee front, there is essentially no end of feats that make you tougher or make you deal more damage. Some are less effective, yes. This just slows the rate of progression. It does not make you actually versatile. The same is true of the generally slower gold.

[Gullintanni]

Why would it matter if they were available pre level six? They're almost all feats. So, at level six, you gleefully slap Arcane Thesis on something and start taking metamagic feats. Fireball can be pretty crazy in E6 with some metamagics. That's pretty strict RAW, too. You don't even need the other reducers unless you want flexibility.

And since it gives you a whopping +2 to CL of that spell, all you need is a reserve feat, and you've hit CL 9. This unlocks further CL boosters like Craft Magic Tattoo.

So, a maximized CL 10 fire/cold/etc ball pretty much tends to solve all sorts of problems. If not, quicken another one.

I'm ignoring all the RAW legal ways of getting spells >3rd level, but those are also quite potent.

On the melee front, there is essentially no end of feats that make you tougher or make you deal more damage. Some are less effective, yes. This just slows the rate of progression. It does not make you actually versatile. The same is true of the generally slower gold.

As I said, my game is a lot more limited than yours. Arcane Thesis and Easy Metamagic simply don't exist. Damage boosts tend to be situational (ie. the oft thwarted Uber-Charger). Stacking the various toughnesses is less than ideal for reasons that I think are obvious enough (and that you're probably well aware of yourself).

The idea is a martial class can build a tripper and a charger with the feats available so that they can be effective in scenarios where one or the other simply won't work.

E6 really only functions as advertised when you ban the things that prevent it from functioning as advertised. Metamagic reducers tend to increase the power of a given spell above what you'd expect of an average third level spell.

Assuming that there are RAW legal ways to cast spells above third level, in order for E6 to work as advertised, then spells above third level simply don't exist, assuming you're committed to keeping the game at the 6th level of play.

It's like...for vanilla D&D, assume there was a RAW legal way to cast level 10 spells pre-epic...level 10 spells simply don't exist. In theory you could research a new level 10 spell, but they simply don't exist. If you want E6 to function as advertised, then you've gotta assume that the same is true for spells of fourth level and up.

[Tyndmyr]

As I said, my game is a lot more limited than yours. Arcane Thesis and Easy Metamagic simply don't exist. Damage boosts tend to be situational (ie. the oft thwarted Uber-Charger). Stacking the various toughnesses is less than ideal for reasons that I think are obvious enough (and that you're probably well aware of yourself).

This is not a trait of E6, sir. In fact, quote from the author, in the rules for E6: "A diverse selection of feats should be made available in any E6 campaign"

Also, hp loss is a common source of death at low levels. While Toughness proper is a poor choice, it's a common prereq, and imp toughness/dwarf's toughness(for those with solid fort saves) ARE quite useful. I suppose giant's toughness or epic toughness are also technically available with sufficient cheese.

The idea is a martial class can build a tripper and a charger with the feats available so that they can be effective in scenarios where one or the other simply won't work.

So, a situation in which charging is impossible, but tripping is effective? This indicates you built your charger poorly. Otherwise, if you can't pull off the charge, it's probably because you can't get to them.

Edit: Note that there is essentially no limit to the number of feats that can improve a charger. Some of them might not be great...but enough situational boosts add up. Snap Kick? Hell yes. The ToB feat that gives extra damage in the first round of combat? Sure. Powerful charge? It's not great, but why not after we get the better ones?

E6 really only functions as advertised when you ban the things that prevent it from functioning as advertised. Metamagic reducers tend to increase the power of a given spell above what you'd expect of an average third level spell.

Oddly enough, it was created to have a slower power progression, not to enforce flexibility.

Assuming that there are RAW legal ways to cast spells above third level, in order for E6 to work as advertised, then spells above third level simply don't exist, assuming you're committed to keeping the game at the 6th level of play.

There are. Sanctum Spell will technically get you casting a 4th level spell without knowing one, for instance. This has a number of repercussions by itself, but crazier combos are available.

Note that E6 does not actually contain the restriction against 4th+ level spells existing in it's ruleset.

It's like...for vanilla D&D, assume there was a RAW legal way to cast level 10 spells pre-epic...level 10 spells simply don't exist. In theory you could research a new level 10 spell, but they simply don't exist. If you want E6 to function as advertised, then you've gotta assume that the same is true for spells of fourth level and up.

There is such a way. Ur Priest and say, legacy champion would do it. Having tenth level slots is still valuable even if you don't have tenth level spells known. Very valuable.

In short, this isn't "E6 promotes versatility", it's "Banning everything that hinders versatility promotes versatility".

[Gullintanni]

This is not a trait of E6, sir. In fact, quote from the author, in the rules for E6: "A diverse selection of feats should be made available in any E6 campaign"

Also, hp loss is a common source of death at low levels. While Toughness proper is a poor choice, it's a common prereq, and imp toughness/dwarf's toughness(for those with solid fort saves) ARE quite useful. I suppose giant's toughness or epic toughness are also technically available with sufficient cheese.

Note that E6 does not actually contain the restriction against 4th+ level spells existing in it's ruleset.

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I didn't say that E6 explicitly said that there was a restriction against 4th level spells existing, nor did I say disallowing a wide variety of feats was a component of E6.

What I said, and what I'm STILL saying is that my E6 is more limited than yours. I dont like Metamagic reducers or sanctum spell shenanigans because they permit players access to abilities normally not available to sixth level characters, or rather abilities that are in my view above the intended power threshold of E6. I take the Cautious approach suggested by the author when dealing with PC spellcasters in my E6.

We obviously differ philosophically here. My goal was to let the OP know that with the correct limitations, you can, in E6, free 3.5 D&D from dependence on the magic item christmas tree, limit dependence on high magic and play a narrative focused gritty game. That's all.

[Tyndmyr]

And, in my experience, regardless of flavor, E6 is still pretty D&D like. Getting the magic weapon is still critical, even if it's a +1 instead of a +5. And the game's still mostly about going into dungeons to score some loot.

[Arbane]

Annnnd...here we go again....

I just thought of something: You know the way 3.5 snobs feel about 4th ed? That's pretty much the way other RPGs' snobs see 3.5.

[Tyndmyr]

Annnnd...here we go again....

I just thought of something: You know the way 3.5 snobs feel about 4th ed? That's pretty much the way other RPGs' snobs see 3.5.

I don't think it's really the point that 3.5 is bad as such. It is, however, bad at doing some things.

This is true of essentially any system. If it wasn't, we'd all play the one perfect system and merrily agree with each other all the time. I won't hold my breath for that, though.

[Knaight]

Annnnd...here we go again....

I just thought of something: You know the way 3.5 snobs feel about 4th ed? That's pretty much the way other RPGs' snobs see 3.5.

Except not. The system matters, which is why we have such a plethora of them. D&D has its place, and its place is combat heavy, tactical gaming in a world with heroes who are far larger than life, in a high fantasy setting. Acknowledging that D&D 3.5 can't do absolutely everything and isn't the best game for everything ever is not snobbery. Its being realistic about the system, instead of fanatical.

For that matter, not liking D&D 3.5 isn't necessarily snobbery either. It won't be to everyone's taste. That isn't a bad thing, a variety of tastes is another one of those reasons we have a ridiculously high number of games.

[bloodtide]

I don't see how I can do so. Magic items are something someone has, not something they are. Anyone else could pick up those items and get the same effect out of them, so what about them makes the PCs so special?

The special part comes from how you use the item, not just the fact that use the item. You can give any goblin a magic item, and they can use it just fine. But they won't use it in and special way. Anyone can swing a sword of flaming at a creature, but a clever PC can find lots of uses for a sword that can make fire on command.

Plus add in some unique items. They don't need to be artifacts, even a couple weak abilities can make an item special. For example, a ring of protection that can also detect poison.

When half of the party are hardcore min/maxers, it becomes an issue. In this particular case, one of them was all set to begin playing a half-fey sorceress who I thought had a rather interesting backstory, but then changed his mind as soon as he heard that another player was going to be a druid (he ended up playing a human cleric, begging me to allow him to apply the favored weapon bonus from his War domain to greatswords despite his deity's favored weapon being a lance).

A high magic world fixes all of this type of problem.

1. A couple of the players are already frustrated with me over the perceived "weakness" of their magic items compared to those of others (I gave each character a special magic item at the end of their first adventure). Taking them away altogether is unlikely to help me there, and besides I have given each of the items some degree of quest-relevance that would be wasted if I took them away.

Note that when you take stuff away, it need not be a magic item. Any item will do. Most PC's have exotic or hard to find items, that if lost can't be replaced.

2. D&D doesnt make it very easy to give a character any long-term afflictions that arent easily solvable via magic, especially since there is a cleric in the party.

Yes and no. By the book even a low level cleric can 'cure' a whole group in one second. But you don't have to go by that 100%. You can just say 'the curse is too powerful for lowly remove curse'. And there are things that are not so easy to get rid of, so use them.

Out side the box afflictions work great too. For example, an imp or pixie that follows a character and makes trouble. No cleric spell can cure that. Or a magic chain that is wrapped to a characters leg and makes noise.

3. One of my main sources of frustration is how preoccupation with the mechanics is keeping the players from so much as remembering the names of quest NPCs. Part of the reason I want to switch to a system like FATE where the mechanics are more closely tied to the narrative is to force the party to care more.

A simple thing to do is make the names easy. Don't have Olpermeltrion the Diviner, have Divinikus the Diviner.

But doing such would require dramatic changes to the setting to account for the effect such high magic access would have on society.

Not at all. You can make it any way you like.

Some examples:

--The high level magic is everywhere, but very few know how to use it. The idea would be something like there once was a great magical empire, and now no one knows quite how to work the stuff.

--Or maybe the mages/clerics keep the 'know how' secret.

--You could make 'high magic' illegal in many places. And that is why the players have not seen it yet. But have plenty 'underground' magic.

--Introduce 'high magic' say from friendly elves (or ilithids). Make it cheap..but maybe sinister.

[Totally Guy]

A high magic world fixes all of this type of problem.

*facepalm*

I'm sure there's a good sound effect for this.

[Tyndmyr]

*facepalm*

I'm sure there's a good sound effect for this.

While the exact quote looked like something more easily handled by a simple refluffing, his overall theme of higher magic fixing a lot of problems is not unreasonable.

D&D mostly expects a certain, fairly high, degree of magic, wealth, and specifically magic items. If you stray too far from that level, especially on the low side, a number of subtle problems crop up. So, sticking with D&D, but changing the setting to be more high magic is one possible solution.

Of course, it's not the only possible solution.

[bloodtide]

*facepalm*

I'm sure there's a good sound effect for this.

I've always run a ultra high magic game and have never had a 'min/max problem'.

It's simple enough: in a 'normal' 8th level game the palace guards are '4th level human male warriors', but in my game they are 4th level Aasimar warlocks.

[Totally Guy]

I don't think this is a setting issue. It looks like the issue is what is happening during play.

I just think that you've taken the conversation back to square 1.

[Xefas]

I just think that you've taken the conversation back to square 1.

Which is appropriate, considering the answer was given by post #6. This guy is a redpill, I just know it. He just has to see the rabbit hole.

Let me tell you why you're here, Niek. You're here because you know something. What you know, you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire roleplaying life. Like there's something wrong with D&D, but you don't know what it is. But it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.

Do you want to know what it is? You see it, every time you spend 2 hours rolling dice and moving around a grid without actually achieving anything; every time you realize that your favorite sessions are the ones that never interact with the system. Every time you plop down another $40 for a hardback book filled with rows of numbers describing slightly differing variations of stabbing someone, despite the fact that the cover says "Roleplaying Game".

It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. The truth that you're playing a tactical skirmish based fighting game while drifting in roleplaying that never existed within the system itself. Like everyone else, you were brought into D&D as your first roleplaying game. Born into a prison that won't let you see things for what they are. A prison for your mind.

Unfortunately, no one can tell you what playing a true story game is like. You have to see it for yourself.

Seek the Wheel, Niek. Follow the white rabbit.

[king.com]

SNIP

Seek the Wheel, Niek. Follow the white rabbit.

Thankyou so much sir.

Also, am I the only one that reads these threads to make me feel good about my players? Sure they're not amazing roleplayers and not the most strategic thinkers but they care about whats going on and that me makes me feel good.

[Niek]

So I talked to my players about the issue and yeah, we're not making any progress on it. The cleric's player builds his character concept and roleplaying out of the mechanics of D&D, and is adamant that the setting should be altered to fit them, whereas I see the mechanics solely as a tool with which to facilitate player interaction with the setting.

[Tyndmyr]

So I talked to my players about the issue and yeah, we're not making any progress on it. The cleric's player builds his character concept and roleplaying out of the mechanics of D&D, and is adamant that the setting should be altered to fit them, whereas I see the mechanics solely as a tool with which to facilitate player interaction with the setting.

Well, it's a two way street, really. Setting affects mechanics to some degree, and mechanics will almost certainly affect setting. For instance, water shortages are not going to be a huge deal in any setting where clerics are common and can simply create water, and thus, you cannot build a plot based on that without being a bit ridiculous.

If they're not amenable to change, how do you feel about changing the setting to fit the system for the remainder of this campaign?

[Niek]

My ultimate goal in running games is, given an existing story I have in mind, seeing how it turns out differently when the protagonist role is given to PCs rather than my own characters. Allowing the setting to change due to factors other than the players' own actions would interfere with that goal.

[Tyndmyr]

My ultimate goal in running games is, given an existing story I have in mind, seeing how it turns out differently when the protagonist role is given to PCs rather than my own characters. Allowing the setting to change due to factors other than the players' own actions would interfere with that goal.

Well, if both of you chase different goals, neither of you will achieve yours. It's not terribly pleasant, but in this case, they appear to be fairly exclusive goals.

[Knaight]

I've always run a ultra high magic game and have never had a 'min/max problem'.

It's simple enough: in a 'normal' 8th level game the palace guards are '4th level human male warriors', but in my game they are 4th level Aasimar warlocks.

One point of data is not enough to make sweeping conclusions. I could say that I've run low magic games and never had a min/max problem, and based on that, that the min/max problem clearly doesn't exist in low magic games. Or, I could acknowledge that it can exist anywhere, as has been demonstrated.

Which is appropriate, considering the answer was given by post #6. This guy is a redpill, I just know it. He just has to see the rabbit hole.

...Every time you plop down another $40 for a hardback book filled with rows of numbers describing slightly differing variations of stabbing someone, despite the fact that the cover says "Roleplaying Game".
...
Seek the Wheel, Niek. Follow the white rabbit.

Burning Wheel Gold is some 600 pages of rules. It has three combat systems, and all of them, with the exception of Bloody Versus, are about 50 pages long. Fight! in particular is immensely complicated, and there are entire game systems with fewer mechanics than weapons and armor rules alone. Rows of numbers describing slightly different variations of stabbing someone are in effect. Now, lets talk about the rabbit hole:

So I talked to my players about the issue and yeah, we're not making any progress on it. The cleric's player builds his character concept and roleplaying out of the mechanics of D&D, and is adamant that the setting should be altered to fit them, whereas I see the mechanics solely as a tool with which to facilitate player interaction with the setting.

Its probably best to GM a short D&D campaign, then insist that new characters be made in FATE, for a FATE game.

[Arbitrarious]

If you haven't, I'd give the BESM d20 a look. The system is a little shaky but it gives some class structure with a bit of free points to help flesh out a character the way you want. It can be broken, easily, but if you players all agree on the power level that shouldn't be a concern.

[Niek]

One point of data is not enough to make sweeping conclusions. I could say that I've run low magic games and never had a min/max problem, and based on that, that the min/max problem clearly doesn't exist in low magic games. Or, I could acknowledge that it can exist anywhere, as has been demonstrated.


Burning Wheel Gold is some 600 pages of rules. It has three combat systems, and all of them, with the exception of Bloody Versus, are about 50 pages long. Fight! in particular is immensely complicated, and there are entire game systems with fewer mechanics than weapons and armor rules alone. Rows of numbers describing slightly different variations of stabbing someone are in effect. Now, lets talk about the rabbit hole:


Its probably best to GM a short D&D campaign, then insist that new characters be made in FATE, for a FATE game.

Burning Wheel sounds like the wrong system for our group then, since the reason we abandoned GURPS was its mechanical cumbersomeness slowing everything down.

I'm not sure what you mean by the second part of your post. Are you suggesting that I abridge my current game so that a FATE game can be started sooner?