To be honest, I think I hate Exalted far more than I ever hated D&D simply because Exalted spectacularly fails to do what it says on the box.  Which part of working out interlocking combos of charms, flipping through rule-books and rolling countless numbers of dice makes for fast and furious action?

Essentially, I'm not a big fan of these front loaded feat/charm games simply because in effect what you have is a combat system and then about 200 exceptions to that combat system in the shape of charms and feats.  Exalted without Charms or the stupid personality mechanics actually plays quite nicely but otherwise I think it's horrific... except for when I sold one of the supplements I bought for about £60.  THAT was pretty cool.

The thing is that up until I hooked up with my current group, it was always by far and away me who did the most GMing, and the group were never mathematically gifted despite boasting two engineers.  So the thought of having to run that lot and spending my time re-explaining which modifiers to use makes me break out in a cold sweat.  As a result I never looked into D20 at all.

I don't hate it, it's just that it pains me to even imagine having to run it.

But I wouldn't mind a chance to run or play pre-D20 D&D, maybe using the rules cyclopedia. If only because I learned all those rules in the old days so I don't need to make that much effort.

Exception based rulesets are a bugger to run.  Cyclopedia works pretty much as it works, once you know a rule you're fine, it doesn't work by the exceptions.

Indeed.

I find that exception-based rule systems just clog up my mental pathways instead of liberating them to concentrate on other things.

I can cope with mathematical sophistication and lots of modifiers and such because I tend to find that stuff fairly intuitive but if there isn't a unifying mechanic then I'm in trouble as I literally resent having to learn what various powers and bits of pieces do.

The other thing that kills me with exception based rulesets is creating effective NPCs.  With BRP I can say "hm, this guy is supposed to be fairly good at research but a lousy speaker, I'll give him Library Use 70, Debate of 25 and we're good to go."

If he's a hostile combatant I can give him Sword 50, Shield 45, Bow 55 and say Dex 12 and 13 HP and I'm done.

In most d20 games to be an effective opponenent I need to think of what feats the PCs have, what feats he might have, how the rules for them work.  If I can do all that then it might be even better I guess as the players' choices and mine all really matter, but it is way too much work.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalBut I wouldn't mind a chance to run or play pre-D20 D&D, maybe using the rules cyclopedia. If only because I learned all those rules in the old days so I don't need to make that much effort.

What would you run with the Cyclopedia?

Yeah, D20 statblocks are fairly horrific.  Weirdly though, I remember that in AD&D it would be kept simple so it was quite rare for enemy fighters to have weapon specialisations and such just so that you wouldn't have to worry about applying modifiers and extra attacks to them.  Seemingly that approach went out with D20.

BRP is fantastic on that level because it's all so intuitive that you can just stat stuff on the fly.


As for the Cyclopedia I don't know... I think I'd struggle to go real old-school and run a dungeon or a "you must save this village from Goblins" style game.  

I'd probably go for something urban and Lankhmary like the players being hired to set up a watch in one of the more violent and lawless sections of the city with a fair bit of fighting and a fair bit of intrigue and alliance building too.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYeah, D20 statblocks are fairly horrific.  Weirdly though, I remember that in AD&D it would be kept simple so it was quite rare for enemy fighters to have weapon specialisations and such just so that you wouldn't have to worry about applying modifiers and extra attacks to them.  Seemingly that approach went out with D20.

And for this, I am thankful.

I almost didn't buy into 3e. That was until I saw the monster manual and saw that they were giving monsters real stats and the possibility for classes. That was meaningful to be because up until that point, I had largely been using humanoid creatures as opponents because I could give them some detail.

There's a certain subset of the D&D fan base that pines for the good old days of 1 or 2 line stat blocks. Me, I am in no rush to return to the days when most of the opposition was modeled as a bag of hit points with a damage dice.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThat was meaningful to be because up until that point, I had largely been using humanoid creatures as opponents because I could give them some detail.

That was me too. I would largely use human/demihuman opponents because creatures were so flat. Which was sad because really nothing says "player fun" like meeting up with a Slaad. :frog:

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAnd for this, I am thankful.

I almost didn't buy into 3e. That was until I saw the monster manual and saw that they were giving monsters real stats and the possibility for classes. That was meaningful to be because up until that point, I had largely been using humanoid creatures as opponents because I could give them some detail.

There's a certain subset of the D&D fan base that pines for the good old days of 1 or 2 line stat blocks. Me, I am in no rush to return to the days when most of the opposition was modeled as a bag of hit points with a damage dice.

EXACTLY. I feel the same way. I feel like putting together a nice detailed encounter with individual tactics is one of the really cool things about D&D.

Quote from: Mr. Analytical... Essentially, I'm not a big fan of these front loaded feat/charm games simply because in effect what you have is a combat system and then about 200 exceptions to that combat system in the shape of charms and feats....

Thank you for nicely stating one of the two things I hate about the d20 combat system.  (The other thing is the apparent need of battlemats to resolve things like AoOs.)

I would be much more fond of d20/3e D&D if it didn't have this goddamn fiddly 'lots-of-rule-breaking-feats' system.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAnd for this, I am thankful.

I almost didn't buy into 3e. That was until I saw the monster manual and saw that they were giving monsters real stats and the possibility for classes. That was meaningful to be because up until that point, I had largely been using humanoid creatures as opponents because I could give them some detail.

There's a certain subset of the D&D fan base that pines for the good old days of 1 or 2 line stat blocks. Me, I am in no rush to return to the days when most of the opposition was modeled as a bag of hit points with a damage dice.

I agree 50% with your main point here.  (Tangent: I disagree with your characterisation of most pre-3e D&D monsters -- most of the monsters in RC or 1e MM had specific abilities that made them more than 'bags of hit points with damage dice'.  But that's a bit beside the point.)

I'm in favour of having a system that allows the GM to make 'monsters' more unique, including giving them 'classes' (and associated abilities).

I just wish that 3e had found a way to do this in a simpler, more streamlined manner.  Just looking at the statblocks in some of my 3e modules make me wince (not to mention that all that information makes actually running an encounter sometimes difficult, as you have to sort through the statblock for the relevant information).

There should be some 'happy medium' between these extremes, i.e., some way to 'customise' monsters without requiring page-long statblocks.

I am of the opinion that special cases should build upon the basic rules, as examples of how to use those rules in different situations. Such as using a targe or buckler in combat. Or, heck, the Agriculture K/S Area in DJ. (A series of bad rolls there can provide a lot of background adventuring. )

I find that exceptions complicate matters more than they need to be. If you find that a rule is being honored more in the breach than the observance, maybe that rule needs a major revision.

Quote from: AkrasiaI agree 50% with your main point here.  (Tangent: I disagree with your characterisation of most pre-3e D&D monsters -- most of the monsters in RC or 1e MM had specific abilities that made them more than 'bags of hit points with damage dice'.  But that's a bit beside the point.)

Oh, I understand that they did. That's not what I was characterizing with that quip. What I was characterizing was the sort of extra short stat block that the folks I am alluding to seemed to be in love with.

Attacks of Opportunity really aren't that bad (other than some of the munchkinism that they have sired).  But the rules for them weren't well presented at all so they created tons of confusion.  

They also don't really require a mat or figures once you get used to them.  I've run pbp games in D20, AoOs have never been a problem.

The rule basically boils down to "if you do something such that you're not able to pay attention to your opponent and you're next to them, they get a free chance to whack you."  Everything else is just corollaries from there.  If you just go with this rule, the results aren't exactly the same, but they're close enough without slowing down the game.

So if you run down a hall past guards, turn around to read the incantation on the wall, turn around and run away, or similar, then you might get hit.  

When running without a mat, I give players the benefit of the doubt since there isn't a clear map in front of them.  If there is room for them to maneuver without running right past someone brandishing a weapon, or if there is room for them to step out of the fight to do something, then I assume they do.  Playing loose like this without a mat does make AoOs come up less often - that it isn't a big deal but players should be aware of that if they're planning on building a character based on AoO.

Quote from: NicephorusAttacks of Opportunity really aren't that bad (other than some of the munchkinism that they have sired).  But the rules for them weren't well presented at all so they created tons of confusion.  

  I think most dislike of the AoO rules are not based upon a perception of poor design but rather upon the general principle that they're un-necessary and a stupid idea regardless of how well implemented the rules are.