Quote from: AsenRG;842687Both of these are known as bad design. What's the point of focusing on examples of what happens if you botch the game design?
Better focus on not botching!

Quote from: NathanIW;842694So you'd be describing an example of a problem I am in no way interested in having.

Caring nothing for a problem, and not even understanding what it is, is a sure-fire proven method of not having it! :rolleyes:

QuoteSo far I have three strategies that I know work from actual play.  Conversation based character generation and random character generation make up the first two.  Specifically avoiding any point buy system where you can get additional points by taking disadvantages.  Or any class building system where points are a spent as a resource in its own character creation resource management game.  CharOp* is definitely a thing I'm not interested in.

The third strategy in and oldy but a goody.  You have a person there (maybe like some sort of referee or judge or game master or something) who might notice a player is attempting to CharOp and then that person tells them what they are doing is inappropriate for the game.

Boring limited design and shut down anyone who deviates from the exhaustively enumerated set of allowed characters. This is sizing up as a wonderful example for how not to design a game!
:popcorn:

QuoteAnd I think that having more skills leads to people to be more likely to view their skill list as a menu of things they can do and, even worse, shouldn't even try.

Hmm; eliminate all skills, or make explicit that anyone can try any skill at a default level. I wonder which one would be a worse design? :confused:

QuoteThis isn't really about trying to make a expansive menu of character options that people can use during the game.  It's about the opposite.

:jaw-dropping: Wonder no more; why close the barn door when you can just kill all the livestock? The total number of possible characters will apparently be less than the number of classes in some games!

QuoteFurthermore, I still see special-snowflake-itis in what you are advocating.

I'm not "advocating" anything; just warning about one thing that will make your game bad and unpopular, which you clearly don't understand. I probably shouldn't have bothered.

Quote*CharOp is a process ...

:rolleyes: This project will be so far below a fantasy heartbreaker that a new term will have to be invented. Fantasy dead letter, anyone? Be sure to blame the players who don't like it; maybe you can call them brain damaged, as that has a proven track record of making designs more popular.

Quote from: rawma;842818Caring nothing for a problem, and not even understanding what it is, is a sure-fire proven method of not having it! :rolleyes:

What you are talking about isn't a single problem, but a whole set of interrelated problems. But seriously, your less than agreeable style of discussion makes it much less than fun to discuss them with you, personally.
And since I'm on this forum for fun, I'm not planning to.

Quote from: AsenRG;842889What you are talking about isn't a single problem, but a whole set of interrelated problems.

And the capstone of this problem construct relies on a foundation that simply isn't present in most OSR games.  And especially isn't present in 0E/S&W/M74.  In order to even have the possibility of having the problem he's hung up on, we'd have to first introduce a variety of other problems on which it could rest.  

For example, the lack of "level appropriate encounters" in most OSR play has an interesting effect on characters of differing power levels.  Be they from being drastically different levels or from character creation.  And while it's not OSR, anyone who has run ongoing games of RIFTS knows that characters of varying power levels is not a game breaker.

QuoteBut seriously, your less than agreeable style of discussion makes it much less than fun to discuss them with you, personally.
And since I'm on this forum for fun, I'm not planning to.

The Pundit brought up a similar concern to one of rawma's and managed to present it without all of rawma's insults and jeering.  And he was far more coherent and focused.  I'm still thinking about his points whereas I will give rawma's drama little additional thought.  Well, I'm an easy going fellow, so if he gives reading and replying to our last few posts another shot, I'll read what he has to say and respond if it merits it more than his last post.

Though what rawma has demonstrated clear ignorance of is an interesting paradox.  That what he has referred to as "limited design" actually maximizes available options during actual play.  Larsdangly was getting at that very topic right from the original post.  

As for what this game is.  It's not a project.  Or a product.  It's just a few pages of notes I use to run my games.  Bits of 0E, S&W, M74, some vestigial M20 bits and ideas from Philotomy's Musings combined with a single adventurer + options "class".  The conversation based character generation would take a bit of explaining I suppose.  

If I ever do decide to put it into actual paragraphs and maybe make a PDF of it, it'll be after I've run it a lot more.  It'll be an M74 variant as it is M74 at its core.  Randall did such a good job with that series of games.  I'm 17 hours in with 6 players and so far it's working great.  We've decided that it'll be ongoing weekly game rather than just being a miniseries.

Quote from: NathanIW;842157My point about using D&D as a grand framework for literature is about only one way being a problem.  When people start seeing class, alignment, level, D&D magic as the way to talk about literature.  As if D&D is more than a game but some grand literary criticism tool.  

And I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction.  D&D was created using (among other things) popular fantasy literature.  The creators of the game (Not just Mr. Gygax and Arneson, but the players as well) took a look at whatever novel, movie or even somewhat historical figure and built a class system around their choices.  So D&D is not some grand tool to discuss literature, but rather created D&D by using literature as it's base.

Also, D&D is not the only game system to use my claim of popular archetypes.  Before I get into that, let me explain what I mean by archetypes.  These are not small, hyper-focused niches that are exclusionary, but rather malleable and yes, relatively broad, even vague groupings of characters you see in just about all sorts of media.  The Fighting Man covers both Knights, Warrior Monks and Archer/Ranged experts, among other types for example, depending on how they deal with potential conflict.  Others straddle a line in the sand, the alchemist can be both Magic User or Expert, again depending on how they deal with potential conflict (and by conflict I'm not talking just combat here, but any issue that pits the character against a difficulty of some sort.)  I want to stress that it's the primary focus of the character in question that is one of those three archetypes, and again, it's not exclusionary.

Other games that used the three Archetypes are Green Ronin's failed True20, their Fantasy AGE system, HERO's Fantasy Hero line of games, MRQ, Warhammer Fantasy RPG, among I'm pretty sure others.  D&D did not create these three major fantasy archetypes, it just uses them more openly.  Players of RPGs gravitate towards one of those three, because they're familiar and we've all seen them before in various forms of entertainment.

I can't find anything to disagree with in that.  I think you're right that concentrating on how some people extrapolate from D&D is the wrong way to look at it.

EDIT:  Just wanted to add that I think the three broad archetypes you have identified are good ones to support in terms of character creation/options and will be reviewing my notes with that in mind.

Quote from: NathanIW;842901rawma's insults and jeering

I explained my point calmly, and you continued to not only misunderstand it but to misrepresent it and to insult me. So you got back what you gave.

As to the substance of the discussion: I played OD&D (well, already with Greyhawk when I began) and a number of other 70s RPGs in the 70s. In real life, there are people who are good at two or more things; either your game won't represent that or you have to give some thought to how being good at two things interacts, whether it's in the rules or in the rulings. It's not special snowflakes, it's not min-maxing, it's not roll-playing instead of role-playing, nor any other insulting slogan you want to throw at it. Really.

Quote from: rawma;842989In real life, there are people who are good at two or more things; either your game won't represent that or you have to give some thought to how being good at two things interacts, whether it's in the rules or in the rulings.

For the purposes of my discussion with you, let's just say the game won't represent it.  That the types of dungeoneers that go on adventures will be sufficiently similar in abilities not covered by the rules that the referee can rely on checks or rulings modified by ability scores as needed.

If you think that's bad, I'm totally okay with that.  It would be foolish of me to run my game to please you.  I have a very low opinion of your preferences and know through actual play that what you present as problems or short comings really aren't matters of concern.  They simply aren't connected to the reality of actual play.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;842917Other games that used the three Archetypes are Green Ronin's failed True20, their Fantasy AGE system, HERO's Fantasy Hero line of games, MRQ, Warhammer Fantasy RPG, among I'm pretty sure others.  D&D did not create these three major fantasy archetypes, it just uses them more openly.  Players of RPGs gravitate towards one of those three, because they're familiar and we've all seen them before in various forms of entertainment.

I'd say the three are also a product of D&D, namely the thief class. You look at the relevant lit before D&D and it was guys with swords (or other weapons) and guys with spells (usually in addition to swords, unless they were bad guys). If you had a "thief" type, they were still weapon masters.

Quote from: apparition13;843061I'd say the three are also a product of D&D, namely the thief class. You look at the relevant lit before D&D and it was guys with swords (or other weapons) and guys with spells (usually in addition to swords, unless they were bad guys). If you had a "thief" type, they were still weapon masters.

Ah, but here's the thing, at some point (And the OG Gronan might be able to shed some light as to when exactly) players figured they needed a 'skilled expert' for opening locks and disarming traps, who quite frankly, was terrible at straight up combat, which they pulled from I'm thinking, popular literature, like Lord Of The Rings (among others.)

Like I said, D&D was created with a plethora of influences, but those influences have the three archetypes in them.

These archetypes are not something I created, they're not new, they've been in Fantasy Literature since the beginning of Fantasy.  Most writers know about them at least peripherally when they create characters that they want their stories to revolve around.

Like I said, D&D just uses them more openly, is all.

Quote from: NathanIW;842265I've played a ton of B/X and one thing I do remember doing is thinking "this time I'd like to try being a cleric" during character generation.  If everything is random all the time you may have incredibly long runs of the character you are interested in not coming up for play.  For example, in my game having both divine spell casting and the ability to turn the unholy will only both be present on the same character sheet 0.5% of the time.  It's simply not what a typical priest/cleric looks like in my game.  So if someone is doing the random thing rather than the conversation thing, it's very, very unlikely to come up as a character with both abilities.

How about letting players choose the first "skill/class/ability/feat" and roll the second one randomly? (Plus 3d6 in order.)
Then a player interested in a cleric can choose which part of "cleric-ness" is more important to him, the divine spells or the fighting undead angle.

Quote from: rawma;842989In real life, there are people who are good at two or more things; either your game won't represent that or you have to give some thought to how being good at two things interacts, whether it's in the rules or in the rulings.

But Nathan's game is producing characters that are good at two things.

A cleric with Fighting, divine blessing
A rogue with Skulduggery, and athletics
A mage with arcane talent and lore
A noble warrior with fighting and interaction
A savage warrior with fighting and athletics
A ranger with fighting and folk magic
A hedge wizard with arcane talent and folk magic

And this one is a true expert in his field, or very dedicated to his cause:

A cleric with Divine blessing and turn unholy

Quote from: NathanIW;842901The Pundit brought up a similar concern to one of rawma's and managed to present it without all of rawma's insults and jeering.  And he was far more coherent and focused.

That's my problem, when anyone manages to be more insulting than the Pundit, the information/rudeness ratio is not favourable to a conversation.

Quote from: rawma;842989As to the substance of the discussion: I played OD&D (well, already with Greyhawk when I began) and a number of other 70s RPGs in the 70s. In real life, there are people who are good at two or more things; either your game won't represent that or you have to give some thought to how being good at two things interacts, whether it's in the rules or in the rulings. It's not special snowflakes, it's not min-maxing, it's not roll-playing instead of role-playing, nor any other insulting slogan you want to throw at it. Really.

Yes, and classless design pretty much guarantees the PCs would be like that. Sure, you must think about the way it works. Then again, the same applies to all elements of the game.

Quote from: apparition13;843061I'd say the three are also a product of D&D, namely the thief class. You look at the relevant lit before D&D and it was guys with swords (or other weapons) and guys with spells (usually in addition to swords, unless they were bad guys). If you had a "thief" type, they were still weapon masters.

Actually, there were only two archetypes, heroes and non-heroes. Most heroes had used some occult solutions at some point in their careers. All of them have skills, and I can't remember a single one that wasn't efficient in combat.

To me the Cleric is the class without a real literary antecedent. Sure, there are priests with powers in S&S but not as adventurers and definitely not in the mold of the cleric.

I think some of the thief comes from The Eyes of the Overworld and some from The Hobbit.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;843074...players figured they needed a 'skilled expert' for opening locks and disarming traps, who quite frankly, was terrible at straight up combat, which they pulled from I'm thinking, popular literature, like Lord Of The Rings (among others.)

So Bilbo...

Quote from: AsenRG;843103Actually, there were only two archetypes, heroes and non-heroes. Most heroes had used some occult solutions at some point in their careers. All of them have skills, and I can't remember a single one that wasn't efficient in combat.

and thinking on it more, not when you include fairy tales. Then you also have the clever hero, the one who wins based on wits. Rapunzel, Red Riding Hood, Puss in Boots and the like, and maybe even Bilbo.

Quote from: AsenRG;843103That's my problem, when anyone manages to be more insulting than the Pundit, the information/rudeness ratio is not favourable to a conversation.

You're probably right.  He seems very dedicated to ways to mechanically differentiate characters to a great degree and having something in place to ensure characters are balanced against one another so no one feels like a side kick and everyone at the table has their niche protected.  5e, 3.x/PF, and 4E all accomplish that quite well, but I'm not sure his concerns are relevant to an OSR thread.  They seem like design goals for a different approach to gaming.

QuoteYes, and classless design pretty much guarantees the PCs would be like that. Sure, you must think about the way it works. Then again, the same applies to all elements of the game.

I want all characters who are appropriate to the types of adventuring the game is about to be sufficiently similarly skilled in a variety of tasks that they can be handled by the referee through some sort of cveck or ruling modified by attributes. I think rawma would prefer a game where each character is mechanically distinct even in terms of their eyesight, ability to climb, what they know about animals, what they know about history, etc.,.  And one where all that is codified into a skill system in advance.

The other side to all this is the balancing effect of the types of situations the players will have to deal with.  If one character is at level 3 and another a 0th level peasant (I have a one shot planned with a DCC style funnel adventure) and they're facing a room that permanently magically blinds people who walk close enough to a statue near the other exit, there's very little on anyone's character sheet that will help them overcome the challenge by appealing to a mechanic in the game rules.  Instead they'll have to describe what their characters are doing.

Another base assumption I'm starting to write down in my notes is that all magic must be found through adventuring.  A character with arcane talent starts with no spells and a character with divine blessing starts with no cleric spells.  I have also decided to change Turn Unholy into a spell and replace iit with Archery as a character option.  I am very generous with opportunities to learn Magic and will be writing down the ratio of spells as treasure once I iron it out.  In my last session a new player wanted to be a sorcerer.  From reading scrolls and taking power from a magic scroll he had three spells by the end of the first session.  The warrior with divine blessing has learned five different invocations so far.  They declined to make an offering at a demonic blood alter to learn a sixth.

If I had characters start with spells, I'd go with DCC's approach and have it be completely random.

Quote from: Arminius;843117To me the Cleric is the class without a real literary antecedent. Sure, there are priests with powers in S&S but not as adventurers and definitely not in the mold of the cleric.

I've been thinking about melding together divine blessing, folk magic and arcane talent into a single magic ability and then having things differentiated based on where the magic comes from and how it is learned.

Not sure though.  I'm not going to do it for my current campaign but if the upcoming oneshot ends up with enough players asking for more maybe I'll go for a more unified sword and sorcery type magic for that.