|
Post by scottyg on Jan 25, 2015 8:30:45 GMT -6
I didn’t like 4E at all. Maybe my reaction wouldn’t have been so bad if it was called something else, but it was so fundamentally different in its approach that it didn’t work for me as D&D. 5E seems similar to 3E in that you could have a fun game with the right person running things. There’s more of what I recognize as D&D in there.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jan 26, 2015 14:19:48 GMT -6
I think 4e should have been the M:tG rpg. I have thought about getting a few of the books and working on the idea but it has only been a passing fancy.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 26, 2015 15:11:19 GMT -6
It seems that no matter what I do, I keep coming back to my default D&D rules:
the 1974 boxed set plus more or less (as my whim takes me) of Supplement I: GREYHAWK
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jan 26, 2015 17:15:52 GMT -6
I picked up 5e as a present and like this take on D&D more than 2x, 3x and 4e. I enjoy the older editions more but it's cool.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 27, 2015 9:18:23 GMT -6
I liked the skill system of 3.5E, but not the game as a whole - so much so that I've now got a set of rules in playtest for a d20 skill-based, level-less game with a point-based magic system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 1:27:48 GMT -6
That's called "Runequest with a d20 instead of percentile dice."
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 28, 2015 3:14:40 GMT -6
In spirit, pretty much.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Jan 28, 2015 19:59:50 GMT -6
The 3E skill system reminded me of MERP. It was laid out in a similar fashion. I didn't really care much for 3E. I was good with 2E and didn't want to relearn the whole system.
Having played 5E, I can say it's not a bad game. I like it better than 3E, but not enough to make me switch. I'll play it, but I'll run the TSR-era editions when I'm the DM.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jan 29, 2015 12:59:27 GMT -6
My dream rule-set is one I am constructing. Basically a second edition of OD&D that takes the supplements and Strategic Reviews into account. I am using BFRPG/S&W as a basis until I get the rules I want written out.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jan 29, 2015 15:49:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 29, 2015 17:24:43 GMT -6
Did you guys ever cross over to what we call SF now in OD&D? Like, did you ever battle robots or get death rays? I recall Gary didn't use gunpowder. I ran sort of an "OD&D Star Wars" back in the day, and Jim Ward's Metamorphosis Alpha is very much like OD&D in many ways, so SciFi came up a lot in our older games. There was also a miniatures rules set called "Space Marines" which had a conversion to OD&D and to MA in the back. Nowadays folks seem to get really hung up on realism, but we used to throw things together and not sweat the details about how it "should" be. Fun trumped realism.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jan 29, 2015 19:31:53 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 22:14:09 GMT -6
So, and I ask with no snark, why not just play Runequest?
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 30, 2015 3:29:00 GMT -6
So, and I ask with no snark, why not just play Runequest? Well, it's not really that close to RuneQuest with a d20. I like to play RQ2/RQ3 with a D100. When I say it's RQ with a d20 in spirit, I am really being quite literal - in detail and mechanics it's very different. The roll-over d20 mechanism changes the dynamic quite a bit in comparison to the roll-under D100, and the whole basis of G&G* is much more closely related to a D&D style game than a RQ one. And then it's part of my personal quest for creating a more minimalist system. * G&G = God & Guild, the working title of these rules.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Jan 30, 2015 8:08:32 GMT -6
Now I want the pdf of God & Guild!
|
|
skars
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 407
|
Post by skars on Jan 30, 2015 14:49:48 GMT -6
I liked the skill system of 3.5E, but not the game as a whole - so much so that I've now got a set of rules in playtest for a d20 skill-based, level-less game with a point-based magic system. Ooof, quite the opposite for me. the skill system in d20 was overly prescriptive and the roll over mechanism breaks completely and turns into pointless arithmetic as soon as targets are over 20. 5e rationalized the numbers all around and Numenera is an interesting rehash of that system but I still think they are too prescriptive...and what I mean by that is that when there is a list of skills on a sheet players are inclined to conform to those actions alone. I know I have mentioned it already on g+, but lately I am thinking Secondary Skills from 2ed were a novel approach.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 30, 2015 16:37:07 GMT -6
The problem with d20 skill systems is that they are boring. At least with d20 combat there is some fiction positioning, armor and weapon choices and cumulative dice rolls that make it exciting (even if d20+BAB > AC isn't all that interesting a mechanic).
The problem with skills is that they're just, "roll a d20" ok you succeed/ok you fail. Rules that aren't fun to use, shouldn't be used.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 19:01:33 GMT -6
I think combining skill systems with level systems is a stupid idea on the face of it. This opinion is not mitigated by the fact that the one such game I played a lot of, Star Wars d20, stinks worse than three feet up Jabba the Hutt's butt. (Many Bothans died to bring us this information.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 19:03:01 GMT -6
The problem with d20 skill systems is that they are boring. At least with d20 combat there is some fiction positioning, armor and weapon choices and cumulative dice rolls that make it exciting (even if d20+BAB > AC isn't all that interesting a mechanic). The problem with skills is that they're just, "roll a d20" ok you succeed/ok you fail. Rules that aren't fun to use, shouldn't be used. And see my upcoming book, "We Made Up some S*** we Thought would be Fun" for an essay on why skills for bluff, diplomacy, fast talk, intimidate, etc, actually hinder role playing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 10:37:13 GMT -6
I think combining skill systems with level systems is a stupid idea on the face of it. FGU's Bushido actually does a good job combining the three (skills, class, & level). It's like Runequest's roll under skills but you add +5% per level to your skill value for class skills. Level's max out at 6 so it will never be overwhelming.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Feb 2, 2015 9:19:15 GMT -6
I think combining skill systems with level systems is a stupid idea on the face of it. I've thought this for a long time as well.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Feb 2, 2015 15:30:21 GMT -6
Torxhbearer RPG made it work. It's a skill based game inspired by B/X dungeoncrawling. The only benefit of levels are what amounts to special feats for non MU and spell slots for Mu. No added hit points or improved attack matrix or anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by exploderwizard on Feb 27, 2015 7:53:23 GMT -6
I think combining skill systems with level systems is a stupid idea on the face of it. This opinion is not mitigated by the fact that the one such game I played a lot of, Star Wars d20, stinks worse than three feet up Jabba the Hutt's butt. (Many Bothans died to bring us this information.) Oh ye gods yes. I enjoy level based games and I enjoy skill based games. Those that try and combine them end up being worse for that. If you have a class based system then making things class abilities is simple. The main reason I think skill systems get tacked on to class/level games is whiny players who complain if their character can't be broadly competent in many areas simultaneously. They want to play a character of class X but also be able to do Y and Z. Jack of all trades characters work OK in skill based systems but are a major PITA in class based ones.
|
|