Results 1,051 to 1,080 of 1483
-
2017-12-18, 03:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
I'd identify three primary factors that led to D&D being effectively untouchable, none of which are actually related to quality (beyond meeting some minimums). Notably:
1) The satanic panic. A bunch of people up in arms about D&D loudly complaining about it to all that would hear made it a household name in a way it never was before, and was the best marketing that could be asked for. It sucked for existing players, but it was good for the brand.
2) Brand recognition. Between being the first and the aforementioned satanic panic D&D acquired a brand recognition on a level with Frisbee and Kleenex. The particular name of one brand was treated as synonymous with all similar products, much to the annoyance of aficionados.
3) Network effects. RPGs in general benefit from network effects, where other people knowing a specific game is a good reason to get into it. The same effect exists in other multiplayer games, but the barrier to entry caused by even a "light" game often having a rules book in excess of 200 pages really causes it to get exaggerated. Once D&D was already known, and picking up players this secured it. The other two effects have faded in efficacy pretty dramatically (particularly the first), but this stays important.
The typical counter argument presented here is Pathfinder, but it benefits from two of these effects. Paizo was a recognized brand when Pathfinder started, it inherited the D&D 3.5 player network due to nigh identical rules. That let it build up to the point where it also hand brand recognition effects.
-
2017-12-18, 03:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Location
- The Frozen North
- Gender
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
-
2017-12-18, 03:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
It is a compromise system.
For basically everything there are other games that do it better. But nearly all things could still be done in D&D 3.5 at least to some extend, especcially if you are willing to use other D20 material. So it works for groups who switch genres. And it is a system where you can bring players who want vastly different things from roleplaying at least to the same table. (That might still blow up later, but maybe it doesn't) And it is easier to learn and to DM than GURPS.
And it is widely known. It has the biggest player pool. Everyone wants to tap into this player and GM pool when starting a new group. There are also so many players who don't like to learn new rules and chances are they know 3.5.
This is why it is so popular.
Coincidently it is not that popular in Germany where TDE is the great compromise system where you always can find players. And without the huge player pool D&Ds lure is basically vanishing.
In one way 21st century D&D went against what seemed to have been an on-going trend of increasingly mundane settings.
If i look at more modern and vastly famous fantasy, then "Game of Thrones" is neither about magic nor martial prowess, it is about human interactions, politics and pettiness. It is the smart courtier dominating here, not the barbarian swordwielder or the magician. Even in the witcher (games and books), where the progagonist is martial he is not about using alchemy or favors from his scorcerer friends and also gets beaten regularly by normal guys in combat.
But maybe 3.x is part of an ongoing trend towards games in-which the PC's are poweful in the context of the setting?
In early D&D you start play as a "dirty peasant" (to use @RazorChain's phrase), and gaining levels is slow compared to later editions of D&D. In contrast PC's in WD&D may quickly rocket to "god-wizard" status. I believe Wizards are less powerful than their 3e equivalents, but to me the increased power of PC's compared to TSR D&D PC's, and especially the increased rate of "leveling up" is striking (perhaps @Tanarii as someone with lots of experience playing 2e, 3.x, 4e and 5e could chime some more?).
I speculate that my taste for playing "squishy" PC's (as in Call of Cthullu and early D&D) is a minority one, and that how well a "power fantasy" experience is delivered correlates with how popular a RPG, which makes me wonder if Exalted (if I have the right impression of it) would be the most popular if it had better name recognition?
Most modern games don't have such fast gain of power. Outside of D&D PCs become more powerful as slowly as once imagined. But in most other games PCs don't start as "dirty peasant" anymore if the game is not about dirty peasents. The design is more about assuming a certain time a character should be played and fixing the power gain speed in a way that this times roughly covers the power range the system is intended to handle.
-
2017-12-18, 06:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Ironic. Your attitude in this post only erases any doubt one might have as to your original intent.
First of all, they're not misusing it. Or are you really claiming that "crying" only has the one meaning?
Second, the context here is an online discussion, and the meaning you're now hiding behind is not the meaning typically used in that context.
The only lesson that might have been necessary here making you understand that when you tell people they're "crying" in this kind of discussion, they're going to take that as an assertion that their position is infantile and they're sobbing and wailing about it. And if by some stretch that's not what you mean, it doesn't matter. You can find a different way to express your opinion, or you can keep causing misunderstandings and making people think you're a smug jerk. Not that there appears to have been any misunderstanding here, given your blatant attitude in other posts. When it's pointed out that their wording caused a misunderstanding, most people say something like "Sorry, I didn't mean it that way" or "Oh, I can see that based on the other meaning of these words, but I really meant this" -- you've chosen instead to go with "You idiot, let me school you on the only possible way this can be used".
And really that's my final comment on the matter -- any further insults from you will only be additional evidence that I had this right all along.Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2017-12-18 at 06:49 AM.
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2017-12-18, 07:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
@crying debate: Isn't it ironic that the guy arguing about intent here is the same guy who insisted that the author was the final authority on message in the thread about racism?
This seems like the real problem. Your DM slapped something together, and it happened that he aimed a lot higher
Not even the evidence I have experienced first hand?
Except in 3.5, which is the edition that allows you to play Doctor Strange. So yes, if you do what 4e and 5e did and take powerful casters out of the equation, you don't see imbalance. Interestingly, that's exactly what I predicted would happen. The fact that you happen to have played a bunch of lower powered games is an interesting observation, but doesn't speak to how high powered games work.
Pathfinder just is D&D. The only difference is the publishing company (which changed between 2e and 3e) and the mechanics (which are on the order of the change from 3.0 to 3.5). It's "some dude's D&D houserules". The only difference is that the houserules are being sold to you.
Gatekeep harder please. THAC0 -> BAB was an objectively good change because it made the game easier to play without changing the behavior of the game. If going to a unified "high rolls are good" mechanic was the only thing 3e did, it would still be one of the biggest improvements any edition ever made.
and finally included a badly implemented skill system (IMHO) and gave us feats.
Feats are good, but caught in a weird middle ground.
PrCs were also a good idea, though Paragon Paths are probably a better setup.
CR was a good design choice.
A lot of the math underlying the game (e.g. WBL) is pretty elegant, even if it doesn't really work.
Much as grognards complain about how it ruined the game by removing shackles from casters, those shackles made the game substantially less fun.
Moving towards a paradigm where "the DM makes something up" represented less of the rules is good for both players and DMs.
The variety of classes, and in particular variety of resource management systems was good.
No one is saying it was perfect, or even that the things it did were implemented perfectly, but it was an improvement on earlier editions, and is better than later ones (as evinced by it and PF's lasting popularity).
-
2017-12-18, 08:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Bringing in the context!... OK maybe I should have just said it again because that is a silly amount of nesting. But does it explain what I was trying to get at? I'm actually curious if it helps. Because I'm out of time.
Brief comment about it D&D's magic design being so easy to get out of hand is a problem, you can't assume everyone is a master.
-
2017-12-18, 09:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
For me at least, d20 / 3.x / PF isn't so much a compromise as it is a system that does its own thing OK... and nothing else well enough to bother. Its popularity just means it gets used for a lot of things that it's not (IMO) suited for.
Yeah, getting out from under the presumed "zero to demigod" pseudo-Campbellian presumptions of D&D's progression system is one of the best reasons (IMO) to ditch that system. Even the old-old "oh we assumed you're retire after level 10" progression was an insane increase in power. And before it's brought up again, no, "just play in this one little level range" is not a solution, it's a wonky kludge.It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2017-12-18, 11:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Hey look at that, turns out you do know many of the huge mechanical changes of the 3e system after all. BAB & the skill system were revolutionary.
Other big changes you missed: making the d20 a central resolution core system instead of having lots of subsystems, revamping saving throws so they're not automatic at high level, and making clear and concise* combat rules (mostly based on 2e Combat & Tactics rules.)
Otoh I credit 3e not on their big changes successes on their mechanical changes (which IMO were mostly improvements), but mainly on timing. The Internet was busy exploded in popularity in 2000.
*Edit: okay maybe concise is the wrong word. Let's try Organized in one location and actually being written in a way that is playable instead.Last edited by Tanarii; 2017-12-18 at 11:13 AM.
-
2017-12-18, 11:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Killjoy, I'm not going to appologize for others (mainly yourself) misconstruing a meaning of a word used properly. I have made no insults at all, and you insisting my meaning was nefarious puts you flat out in the wrong.
Even after I told you to look up the meaning of the word, you went and deliberately got the wrong one. The context here was clearly referring to a cry for balance. This is neither denegration nor insulting, this is what it is. It's what this whole thread is about... calling out a percieved issue, asking for attention on it and requesting change. Hence, a cry for balance.
-
2017-12-18, 11:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
I feel like we have been going around in circles for several threads here.
My point is that traditional high level D&D adventures like stopping rampaging Tarrasques, creating or destroying epic artifacts, saving the world from the dark lord, slaying ancient dragons, storming the gates of Hell to defeat an arch-devil, battling Balors, Kracken, Liches, and Titans, or forming / overthrowing world spanning empires can be ran in any edition of D&D and it is only 3.X where the power discrepancy between characters is so much that a high level martial won't meaningfully contribute while doing so.
Likewise a high level caster in any edition can still Stop Time, call down meteors, summon demigods, open planar rifts, bring back the dead, teleport across the world, shape-change into a dragon, etc. 3E casters aren't "more powerful" as such, its just that the game has some many ways to ignore the limitations that other editions have placed on casters, spells are easier to pull off and it is far easier to ignore limitations like spell slots and even spells known if you know the tricks. Its not really a matter of power, but rather one of convenience that wrecks the day.
But yes, of course you can raise (or lower) the power level of casters to any point you can imagine because magic is make believe. I also agree that this is harder to do for mundane characters because most people have an idea of what a mundane person is capable of and will call BS on you if your rules make them strong enough to leap tall buildings or so incompetent that they fail routine tasks in their area of expertise 25% of the time (cough 5E cough).
If one was so inclined they could also create a setting where martials dominated casters by limiting casters to occasionally pulling a rabbit out of a top hat while letting martials turn into DBZ esque martial artists. One could also be playing a game set in a super advanced sci-fi setting where anything a D&D wizard can do can be easily replicated by technology and studying magic is just a waste of time.
Also, the problem with Dr. Strange (and indeed most comic book characters, especially ones with ill-defined "reality warper" powers) as a comparison point is that they are super inconsistent. Most comics I read with Dr. Strange in them are crossovers where he doesn't really do anything a mid level low OP D&D caster could do, but I also understand there are other comics where he can defeat gods and remake universes.
I agree.
Also, thank you for limiting Gandalf to a Planetar or Trumpet Archon. One of my personal pet peeves is people dramatically overstating Gandalf and he is usually claimed to be an archangel and equivalent to a Solar or even a D&D god. My former DM claimed that he was the greatest of all the Maiar and could easily defeat Sauron single handedly and had even done so several times in the past, and I have seen more than a few people claim something similar online and even back their argument up with misquotes from Tolkien. /RANT
3E did pretty up AD&D in a lot of ways by cleaning up the math and making the system more unified, but it also broke game balance pretty badly.
Most of the innovations like feats and skills were done earlier and better by Fallout.
IMO the only things that 3E did really well that I incorporate into most systems I design these days are the Fort/Ref/Will saving throw categories and standardizing action types. And even these I would be surprised if 3E did them first.Last edited by Talakeal; 2017-12-18 at 06:15 PM.
Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2017-12-18, 11:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Spoiler: Spoilered for those who'd rather skip it.
Even if we give you a benefit of the doubt that you've not only not earned, but actively and deliberately squandered with your ongoing attitude of solipsistic arrogance, and generously presume that you had that one particular meaning in mind when you originally wrote the comment...
...the other meanings are not wrong -- they're right there in the same dictionaries you keep quoting, so you can't really argue (at least not from an intellectually honest standpoint) that one meaning is right and one meaning is wrong based on that standard -- and are at least as valid in the venue and context at hand, and you've had them explained now in detail.
When the words you use have multiple valid meanings, people who read your comments in a way (you insist, at least) you didn't mean, are not to blame for your ambiguous wording -- especially when the context and venue leans heavily towards a meaning other than the one you really really wanted to use. At some point if you want to be clearly understood and care more about discussion than "winning", you have to take how your words will be received into consideration; there are usually other ways to convey the same idea that bring more light than heat to the exchange.
But it's obvious at this point that being "right" is your only concern. You claim that you didn't mean insult, but you're perfectly willing to be insulting in your "proof" that you weren't being insulting.
So... /plonk.
E: and if that didn't explain it, maybe this quote you ignored earlier will help you:
It's at least as common to see "crying for" used in the context of "crying for your momma!" or "Oh, are you crying?" That connotation exists, no matter how "wrong" you think it is.
(The "you" here is not Knaight, for clarity.)
Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2017-12-18 at 12:52 PM.
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2017-12-18, 11:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2017-12-18, 12:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
That is a tricky one and one which I had to deal with often as a 2nd ed high level spellcaster. Do you err on the side of making it so that all spells which require a saving throw are over-powered or fundamentally useless? My 2nd ed wizard just eventually stopped using any spells which could be blocked a saving throw because there was next to no chance of them doing anything (pretty much everything they face has magic resistance and saving throws of 2 across the board). Maybe the problem is inherent within saving throws themselves.
Firm opponent of the one true path
-
2017-12-18, 12:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
THAC0 -> BAB was a good change. Unifying rolls to "roll a d20, add bonuses, did you meet it exceed target number?" was a good change. These changes changed the game from "college-educated adults still ask 'do I want high or low?' after playing for months or years", to "7-year-olds can play the game competently with minimal training".
Note that these are explicitly implementation changes - the underlying concept of "get better at attacking in discrete increments as you level" or even "using a d20 to randomize outcomes" remained the same.
The value of everything else on your list, however, is subjective.
Now, I'd argue that "save vs obfuscated verbiage" -> FRW, that wasn't explicitly on your list, was a good change. But this transition obfuscated how saving throws worked under the hood, with "Save or Die" effects effectively having a lower save DC than other spells in earlier editions. And that a first level character generally had a +7 or +8 average to their saving throws, against a static DC 20 roll.
The skill system changed from proficiency, which was "proficient > stats > level", to skills, which was either "proficient > level > stats", or "level > proficient > stats". Was this a good change? Depends on who you ask.
Was CR a good idea? Well, that one's actually very complicated to answer. Was it a good idea to give a GM a tool to roughly gauge how challenging am encounter should be? In a system with as broad of range of build power levels as 3e? Absolutely not. In a system with 2e's smaller power range? Yeah, probably could be helpful - if the GM views their job as creating balanced encounters, which is opposed to the old-school methods of leaving the determination of the suitability of the challenge to the PCs (which I personally prefer). And, even so, it results in GMs overconfidently assuming that any CR X encounter is appropriate for any possible Level X party, without actually developing the skills to evaluate it for themselves. Was it a good idea to tie the experience earned from an encounter to its expected relative challenge rating? Only if your goal is to encourage high-op builds, and allow GMs to give no XP for encounters by choosing things outside the valid bounds. (Note: I need to add these to the unintended consequences thread)
WBL would have been good for trying to create a static balance point - but it is opposed by the huge balance range available in 3e, from the commoner who kills the Tarrasque at level 1, to the eternally unconscious elder elf Wizard.
In 2e, you'd have people creating cool custom content to add unique flavor to their worlds; in 3e, this just results in arguments about appropriate CR, or even claims that the GM is somehow cheating.
In short, 3e was a hodgepodge of seemingly decent ideas whose actual effects were of questionable value.
-
2017-12-18, 12:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Most spells which require saving throws take the enemy out of the fight in one go, which isn't really fun or fair for anyone and doesn't really help for team synergy as if some people are spamming SoD spells and others HP damage neither of them are helping the other.
I personally have saving throws that get really good at high levels but are heavily penalized by lower level spells cast from higher level spell slots.Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2017-12-18, 12:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Most, not all. It just kinda sucks that looking at the massive stack of four books of pure spells and knowing that two of those books are completely pointless (well three of the books really considering half of the remaining spells do not apply.)
I'm actually still looking at the auto-success on a certain number of saving throws from a few pages back and refining it into a SoI -> SoS -> SoD type system. So for a Petrify style spell vs a high level fighter it might start by turning their foot into stone (SoI), then turn their legs to stone (SoS), then finish them off with the rest turning to stone (SoD).Firm opponent of the one true path
-
2017-12-18, 01:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Killjoy, it is obvious further discourse with you is useless. I will end this line of conversation and will completely ignore you in the future.
-
2017-12-18, 01:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
3e had downsides as well, and among the worst were scaling issues as levels went, resulting in a huge span of bonus value vs the size of a d20. This meant target values that could easily result in automatic failure (for low bonuses vs high target numbers) to automatic success (for high bonuses vs low target numbers). The issue occurred with skills, BAB and saves.
On the plus side, really the thing that had the most impact on RPGs overall was the big dog in the room showing that they were willing to go to a centralized resolution system and codified action system. Centralization & unification were a 3e theme.
Another downside to that is it's relatively rules-heavy, which also had a big impact on RPGs overall, but in the opposite direction. Although EVERY edition of D&D simplifies on the previous edition + all it's splats after years of releases. 3e was no exception, it definitely simplified on the combined total of AD&D 2e's years of releases.
-
2017-12-18, 02:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Centralization & unification were already well established outside D&D, and this was a textbook case of D&D catching up to where the rest of the industry was ten years ago. Heck, Fudge came out in 1994, and it's vastly more unified than D&D was*. This was small potatoes.
The big potato is the OGL. It's a beautiful licence that gets used for completely non-D&D products with a surprising frequency, it brought the d20 boom for all sorts of systems (which admittedly were mostly terrible, but hey, Mutants and Masterminds) and the industry culture around that d20 boom marked a shift from core systems that one company produced a bunch of content for (GURPS, Palladium) to core systems that were widely available and had a fair few creators involved (Fate, Savage Worlds, ORE, Ubiquity). Then there's the matter of how the combination of OGL terminology and laws around intellectual property of game mechanics allowed for the emergence of the retroclone and the whole OSR movement that sprung up from that.
*Spoiler: Long List of ExamplesWhat really shows this is the extent to which D&D uses different mechanical scales for different things, where Fudge doesn't. A quick list:
- Attributes: 3-18 (D&D, very soft cap), -4 to +4 (Fudge).
- Attribute modifiers: -4 to +4 (both, where Fudge just uses attributes).
- Task difficulty: 5-30 (D&D, soft cap), -4 to +4 (Fudge).
- Skill ranks: 3-23 or 0-10 (D&D), -4 to +4 (Fudge).
- Spell level: 0-9 (D&D).
- Level: 1-20 (D&D).
- Hit dice: d4 to d12 (D&D).
Fudge is a pretty extreme example of mechanical unity, but that list really indicates that D&D overstates it a bit.
-
2017-12-18, 02:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
One of the core issues with the system across multiple editions is that it doesn't just have try to balance at one "spot", it has try to balance at 20+ "spots", while balancing an ever-increasing number of items (ie, class bloat as more splats are published) -- the steep progression means it has to keep re-balancing as it climbs the ladder too.
HERO had a single resolution mechanic for combat and skills and some other things going back to into the 80s, as one example (3d6, roll under a target number). This wasn't new to 3e... at most 3e can say that it finally gave in to that concept, and by doing so brought it more exposure.
Rules Heavy and D&D became so synonymous that for some people "Rules Light" and "not D&D also became synonymous.Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2017-12-18 at 02:27 PM.
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2017-12-18, 03:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
-
2017-12-18, 04:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
-
2017-12-18, 04:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2017-12-18, 05:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Location
- The Frozen North
- Gender
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
I think both Knaight and Max_Killjoy have already adressed my question what huge mechanical improvements 3.x did for the roleplaying world . Nothing in that edition was innovating and from design principle THAC0 was idiotic in the first place, me and my mates could see that already as a 13 year olds and turned it around already then. Not that we took any credit for being geniuses but most other system either had you roll under or add the die to a number to beat a target number like Cyberpunk 2020.
Telling somebody that feats, skills or making unified rules was revolutionary in the year 2000 is historical negationism at it best. But as it stands I have to agree on as an avid 2nd edition player that the rules were an improvement in a way....finally they had a skill system, it only took 26 years.Last edited by RazorChain; 2017-12-18 at 06:00 PM.
-
2017-12-18, 06:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
- Location
- Right behind you!
- Gender
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
-
2017-12-18, 06:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2017-12-18, 06:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Location
- The Frozen North
- Gender
-
2017-12-18, 06:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
Not defending THAC0, but I do understand why it happened. Wargamers at the time were clearly used to referencing tables for things, including determining if you Hit (and often, what kind of hit you got), and allowing for repeating numbers.
THAC0 is merely a first attempt at a shortcut, trying to turn a hit table that into math based on two values (THAC0 and AC) instead, without completely revamping how the hell the table and AC are designed from the ground up.
If you look at BECMI's hit table, the repeating numbers and other factors (extra damage on hit) make it obvious that it's a table (or matrix) system.
Edit: and that's one of nice things about 3e, it did a lot of ground-up redesign. Of course, they had a few missed in the process. Leading to threads like this, which should have been posted in the 3e forum or been labeled 3.X. Because it's talking about a 3.X problem.Last edited by Tanarii; 2017-12-18 at 06:49 PM.
-
2017-12-18, 06:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Location
- The Frozen North
- Gender
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
It's such a looooong time since I played BECMI that I kinda have forgotten most of it To my defense I was a kid and only played it for couple of years until we switched over to 2nd edition which I played for almost 10 years. I remember how we'd make tables so we didn't have to calculate until we just turned it upside down like they did in 3.x
-
2017-12-18, 09:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.