Quote from: Willie the Duck;1008060

I keep saying that rumors of a vast gulf between gamers of yore and of today are greatly exaggerated. It is nice to see evidence thereof.

Agreed. What I've seen over the years, when I run games, is that players really seem to enjoy the way I run games; they handle the stats, and I run the action. It seems to work for them, and they like the freedom to act. Mayhem usually ensues, of course.

Quote from: Greentongue;1008061People seem to react well when they are in familiar situations.
If things can be presented in ways that are not too strange, there is a higher comfort level for players.
=

I don't know about the 'familiar situations' aspect of it, but I've found that running Tekumel is my usual style seems to ease people into the situations and setting pretty well with very minimal amounts of exposition needed. Maybe it's the way I drop them into the action, where they have to run with things as they find them - I dunno, as I'm too close to the thing to be able to tell...

Quote from: DavetheLost;1007232Thank you all for explaining feat chains. I know what feats are from my very brief brush with 3.x and d20 CoC but none of the mysteries of chains etc.

Feat Chains were one of the worst features of 3e D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1008480Feat Chains were one of the worst features of 3e D&D.

I'm still trying to get my head around why wearing 'heavy armor' is a 'feat'. You buy it, you wear it, and you either can use it well or you get dead. To me, a 'feat' is Luke Skywalker swinging across a bottomless chasm on a bit of dental floss while hanging on to the Princess. Wearing armor is hours of drill and practice, and getting your butt kicked around the tiltyard by somebody better then you. Probably rhetorical question - do people still play that way, any more?

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1008508I'm still trying to get my head around why wearing 'heavy armor' is a 'feat'. You buy it, you wear it, and you either can use it well or you get dead. To me, a 'feat' is Luke Skywalker swinging across a bottomless chasm on a bit of dental floss while hanging on to the Princess. Wearing armor is hours of drill and practice, and getting your butt kicked around the tiltyard by somebody better then you. Probably rhetorical question - do people still play that way, any more?

It's the "use it well" part that's the feat, representing putting in the hours of drill and practice:). Swinging across the chasm would be something like Jumping, under those rules, though there's a feat that can give you bonuses to the skill roll.

And I agree with Pundit on that account. The whole edition that used the "feat chains" was a badly designed game to begin with, the feat chains weren't even among the worst issues;).

What you describe with getting to learn to use heavy armour or other skills by, you know, actually drilling the skill, is how Pendragon, Traveller and Runequest work, at least in my experience:D!

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1008508I'm still trying to get my head around why wearing 'heavy armor' is a 'feat'. You buy it, you wear it, and you either can use it well or you get dead. To me, a 'feat' is Luke Skywalker swinging across a bottomless chasm on a bit of dental floss while hanging on to the Princess. Wearing armor is hours of drill and practice, and getting your butt kicked around the tiltyard by somebody better then you. Probably rhetorical question - do people still play that way, any more?

The later editions of D&D incorporated "skill points," which supposedly represented slowly learning things, and "feats" which represented who the hell knows what.  Some sort of "goodie," I guess.  And somebody apparently decided that rather than saying "Magic users can't wear armor" they had this whole economy of how some "feats" and "skills" cost more if they were somehow "inappropriate" to your class.  And instead of saying "at this level you are experienced enough to wear plate armor well," they said "you have to buy the Heavy Armor feat which becomes available at this level."

And they still kept the damn level system.

Or so it seems to me.  The games just became muddled masses of rules, trying to be a level based system and a skill based system at the same time.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1008508I'm still trying to get my head around why wearing 'heavy armor' is a 'feat'. You buy it, you wear it, and you either can use it well or you get dead. To me, a 'feat' is Luke Skywalker swinging across a bottomless chasm on a bit of dental floss while hanging on to the Princess. Wearing armor is hours of drill and practice, and getting your butt kicked around the tiltyard by somebody better then you. Probably rhetorical question - do people still play that way, any more?

In 5e think of it as "training" because in several cases thats what a 5e feat really is. Youve trained to be able to wear heavy armour and not suffer the problems. In 5e anyone can wear any armor (as long as it fits of course.) But if you dont have proficiency then you are at disadvantage on skill and ability checks and cant cast spells.

As a DM I tend to require the players to have been RPing their characters dithering around with whatever feat they are aiming for beforehand. Though so far most have opted for the stat points rather than gain a feat. They are optional and Im in two campaigns where they arent being used as level up options. But are potentially availible as training from NPCs. IF you can find one.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008514The later editions of D&D incorporated "skill points," which supposedly represented slowly learning things, and "feats" which represented who the hell knows what.  Some sort of "goodie," I guess.  And somebody apparently decided that rather than saying "Magic users can't wear armor" they had this whole economy of how some "feats" and "skills" cost more if they were somehow "inappropriate" to your class.  And instead of saying "at this level you are experienced enough to wear plate armor well," they said "you have to buy the Heavy Armor feat which becomes available at this level."

And they still kept the damn level system.

Or so it seems to me.  The games just became muddled masses of rules, trying to be a level based system and a skill based system at the same time.

2e is where it really started. Before that there were more reasonable things like what youd get in AD&D or Oriental Adventures. But 2e really wanted to be a point and skill based system. To me it came across as a bit, ahem, pointless. But others seemed to like it. 3e ramped that up. It works better than 2e in a way. But at the same time felt lacking.

I like 5es approach overall other than calling the feats, er, feats. They work more like advanced skills and training.

Quote from: AsenRG;1008512It's the "use it well" part that's the feat, representing putting in the hours of drill and practice:). Swinging across the chasm would be something like Jumping, under those rules, though there's a feat that can give you bonuses to the skill roll.

And I agree with Pundit on that account. The whole edition that used the "feat chains" was a badly designed game to begin with, the feat chains weren't even among the worst issues;).

What you describe with getting to learn to use heavy armour or other skills by, you know, actually drilling the skill, is how Pendragon, Traveller and Runequest work, at least in my experience:D!

Oh, all right; this all makes sense.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008514The later editions of D&D incorporated "skill points," which supposedly represented slowly learning things, and "feats" which represented who the hell knows what.  Some sort of "goodie," I guess.  And somebody apparently decided that rather than saying "Magic users can't wear armor" they had this whole economy of how some "feats" and "skills" cost more if they were somehow "inappropriate" to your class.  And instead of saying "at this level you are experienced enough to wear plate armor well," they said "you have to buy the Heavy Armor feat which becomes available at this level."

And they still kept the damn level system.

Or so it seems to me.  The games just became muddled masses of rules, trying to be a level based system and a skill based system at the same time.

Oh. Doesn't EPT have a skill- and level- system? I thought I remembered that Phil handled it pretty well, but it could just be my aged memory...

Quote from: Omega;1008522In 5e think of it as "training" because in several cases thats what a 5e feat really is. Youve trained to be able to wear heavy armour and not suffer the problems. In 5e anyone can wear any armor (as long as it fits of course.) But if you dont have proficiency then you are at disadvantage on skill and ability checks and cant cast spells.

As a DM I tend to require the players to have been RPing their characters dithering around with whatever feat they are aiming for beforehand. Though so far most have opted for the stat points rather than gain a feat. They are optional and Im in two campaigns where they arent being used as level up options. But are potentially availible as training from NPCs. IF you can find one.

Ah! Gotcha! This sounds just like the way I do it. Makes sense to me.

Quote from: Omega;10085232e is where it really started. Before that there were more reasonable things like what youd get in AD&D or Oriental Adventures. But 2e really wanted to be a point and skill based system. To me it came across as a bit, ahem, pointless. But others seemed to like it. 3e ramped that up. It works better than 2e in a way. But at the same time felt lacking.

I like 5es approach overall other than calling the feats, er, feats. They work more like advanced skills and training.

Oh. Oh, my. I can see what I missed out on, over the years...

I like class/level based games. I like skill based games. Trying to mix the two usually doesn't work out so well.
I also have come to prefer simpler, lighter rules. If the players and I can't roll some dice and agree on what happens without consulting six tables and charts scattered across three volumes of rules why are we playing a game together?

Who is your character? What are you trying to do? How are doing it? Answer these three questions and success or failure is usually pretty clear.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1008526Oh. Doesn't EPT have a skill- and level- system? I thought I remembered that Phil handled it pretty well, but it could just be my aged memory...

Original EPT had some skills, yes.  But they were more background; you didn't roll a character, decide to be a fighter, and then have to buy (and keep buying) skills ranging from weapon use to whatever.

I don't remember Sore and Gory.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008547Original EPT had some skills, yes.  But they were more background; you didn't roll a character, decide to be a fighter, and then have to buy (and keep buying) skills ranging from weapon use to whatever.

I don't remember Sore and Gory.

Adventures in Tekumel went skills only. If you wanted to cast spells you studied it during the school phase of chargen.