Quote from: grubmanFor an extra $2, I'll throw in a ring bound copy of Basic Fantasy (because, well, it really sucks compared to REAL basic D&D...but I feal guilty just throwing it away).

What is it about Basic Fantasy that sucks so much? As I don't own any version of D&D, I had been considering getting a copy from Lulu as a cheaper option than Rules Cyclopedia or C&C...

good gaming to you,
TheShadow

Quote from: The_ShadowWhat is it about Basic Fantasy that sucks so much?

Oh no, I'm not falling into that trap!  My lips are sealed

It's only one mans opinion, take that at face value.

Quote from: grubmanOh no, I'm not falling into that trap!  My lips are sealed

It's only one mans opinion, take that at face value.

Didn't mean to be inflammatory. Just was interested in your opinion as I'm thinking of buying a copy...

good gaming to you,
TheShadow

Quote from: The_ShadowDidn't mean to be inflammatory. Just was interested in your opinion as I'm thinking of buying a copy...

good gaming to you,
TheShadow

I was being funny.  If you notice my sig, it's in response to the last time I talked about the game.  I gave some strong personal opinions on the game...most people disagreed with me, and I stomped off in a huff.

In a nutshell, I find the game an insult, as it’s mostly plagiarized from Moldvay basic/Expert D&D.  The “author” is extremely arrogant in all other regards.  The only thing it adds to basic D&D is a conversion table for to hit (compatible with D20)…although I made a similar conversion chart in about 5 minutes.  I also think it’s butt-ugly.

The only reason I downloaded/printed a copy was because I was going to write some fantasy adventures for posting online for basic, and debating using the system…until I read the additions to the OGL in the back, basically saying that the author has to approve everything in your adventure, and everything becomes total open game content, including all your original writing and any original artwork.

All that aside, the game is what it is…as you can see my opinions above have nothing to do with anything except a personal “bad taste” in my mouth.

Ah, I didn't realise the history. I'm a recent arrival around here. (I'd been getting cheesed off with rpg.net, and its recent downtime finally gave me the push I needed...)

good gaming to you,
TheShadow

Quote from: grubmanI also think it's butt-ugly.

Really, the interior artwork is a step above Holmes D&D but I'll give you that the cover is horrid (I recommended a cover artist to the author) . As for the author being smug, I really didn't get that at all (which came as quite a shock, as I have a burning hatred for the forums at which he is a moderator).

Quote from: jdrakehThis issue that you get into here is that actions as mundane as climbing are character special abilities in C&C. Ruling that only Rogues (and Rangers) can climb things doesn't make a lot of sense. That said, the actual rules as written don't dicsuss this option of yours, IIRC. They, instead, let non-classed characters attempt actions that mimic class abilities, penalizing such characters by denying them their Level add when rolling.

As stated above this is untrue, the rules do address this.

Quote from: jdrakehThis is true, though. . . if a Rogue and a non-Rogue both choose Dexterity (the relevant Prime), they both gain the same benefits from it. So, assuming that a rogue and a non-rogue character of the same level both have Dexterity as a Prime, the only thing (if using the actual RAW) that would differentiate the Rogue's climbing attempt from the non-Rogue's climbing attempt is that the non-Rogue doesn't get to add their level to the die roll.

In this example, both characters roll for the same target number on a d20, so if the non-Rogue has any other factors working in his or her favor and the Rogue does not, they automatically outclass the rogue in terms of likelyhood of success. In my game, this was pretty much what happened. As you (and I) both note, this will change once charcters accumulate three or four levels, after which point in time a classed character gains a great deal of upward mechanical inertia due to the non-classed character rarely (if ever) improving in their use of a skill that mimics a class ability.

Which, again, introduces another problem -- namely that characters who don't possess a class ability for some mundane action such as climbling will forever suck at it. And since C&C doesn't include (to the best of my recollection) rules for multi-classed characters by default, fixing this problem is entirely up to the consumer.

How is this any different from D&D?  If you as a Rogue with a +2 Str modifier and 4 skill ranks in Climbing...have a Fighter in your party with a +3 Str mod and 4 ranks devoted to Climbing, that Fighter is better than the Rogue at climbing.  

The problem is further complicated, in D&D, by the fact that you can continuously go up in skills, thus making the gap impossible to close.  C&C actually fixes this.  Yes they make equal our outclass you for one level...maybe even two( and this is always in only particular aspects of the Rogue's ability), but after that you're better than them and stay better than them.  You should be, because while the Wizards studying spells and the Fighter is practicing with weapons...you're practicing how to climb.  


The main problem I see with your example is that...
1.) It only holds up under very specific circumstances( the rogue player has a low Dex, or the non-rogue has a higher Dex than the rogue...or the non-rogue is playing a non-human w/bonuses)

2.) It only lats until at most 2 levels, which even then seems to indicate the Rogue player doesn't have a grasp of the rules at all.

3.) With the racial bonuses it only applys to certain rogue abilities and often in specific circumstances.  So they don't excel in a total sense over the Rogue.

Quote from: jdrakehDid I say that? No. What I did say was that non-Thief characters in BFRPG can attempt to perform actions that mimic class abilities (e.g., climbing) much as they can in C&C. The difference here is that, in BFRPG, rather than levy a penalty for such an action attempt, the non-Thief character rolls a d20 versus a target number (based on character level) while the Thief rolls their % skill. This is where that math that I've been talking about comes into play.

In BFRPG, the Thief's player rolling the % dice has a roughly 10%-15% better chance of successfully climbing something than a non-Thief character of the same level. More importantly, however, since both the target number that the non-Thief character's player must roll greater than decreases with level gains, as does the % value that the Thief character's player must roll less than, both characters learn to do these things better over time.

In the end, however, the Thief character will always have the edge when doing thiefly things. Unlike in C&C, no poor player choices during character gen will change this reality, nor is the GM left having to house-rule away weirdness like non-classed characters being unable to learn how to perform certain mundane actions.

Not familiar with BFRPG, but I'm wondering if factors like ability modifiers, and race don't apply in this game...especially since a +1 is equal to a 5% increase in percentiles and, with the same "mistakes" that one could make in C&C",  could easily equal or outstrip the 10% to 15% bonus a rogue gets.

Once again C&C does address the last line of your above post.

Quote from: jdrakehI don't know, I think the fact that C&C requires house rules to address certain issues (again, several of which I've outlined above and you've been kind enough to lend credence to) while BFRPG doesn't speaks highly to the amount of thought and testing that went into both games (or at least the understanding of dice probabilities that went into both games).

I'm not saying that C&C is a bad system, mind you. What I'm saying is that it's not perfect -- and I know that you're pretty firmly on record as refusing to admit that it's anything less than. This being the case, I really don't see this discussion going anywhere productive.

I'll say that I dislike X about C&C, cite specific examples of why, and you'll ignore all of the specifics that I provide, claiming that they don't exist or that the implementartion of house rules retroactively removes them from the RAW. We've pretty much danced this dance before, elsewhere.

I know from past conversations that you see nebulously defined rules as a feature, not a bug. And that's cool. You should, however, be aware that many people desire well-defined rules and that C&C doesn't fulfill this desire very well, while other games (e.g., D&D 3.5, BFRPG, etc) do.

Well I don't think C&C is perfect, but the problems your citing seem to come from specific examples of either
1.) A player not understanding the game
2.) You not having a full grasp on the rules set
3.) A characteristic of random ability generation and/or players having any type of customization choice in the design of their PC's.

Quote from: AkrasiaUm, sorry, but this is not my 'house-rule'!

From p. 112 of the PH (2nd printing):

"There will be times when a player will want a character to attempt an action that intrudes in the realm of the class ability of another character class.  For example, a fighter might wish to open a lock ...  It is up to the Castle Keeper to decide if such an action is even possible.  In general, it is recommended that a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in attempting a non-class abilitiy.
...
It is important to note that the abilities of each class have the best results when used by only that class.  A rogue can move silently, with an absolute absence of sound.  A fighter, therefore, should onlybe able to move very quietly, even with a successful roll."

This isn't a rule. It's a lack of rules. Rules are codified systems of order that enforce certain realities. You don't tell somebody that 4+4 should equal eight and then tell them that it's up to them to provide the mechanics that make this happen.  You don't have to. The rules of basic math cover this.

C&C has many suggestions but little in the way of actual, codified, mechanics to enforce them. Again, I'm aware that you like things this way -- but let's not pretend that saying "its' up to you to make sure things work the way that they should" represents a rule.

The cited text above is a perfect example of what I'm taking about. It's up to the CK to determine whether using the core resolution mechanic to mimic class abilities is allowed. There are no rules that say definitely, one way or the other. Likewise, it says that a Fighter should only be able to move very silently -- but there isn't an actual rule that guarantees it.

All of that said, let's pretend that saying "use your best judgement" is a mechanic.

As mentioned earlier, if you disallow characters to mimic class abilities you're preventing them from performing some rediculously commonplace actions (again, such as climbing[/i). This is, of course, ludicrous.

If you use the class level penalty, but only allow them to perform somewhat well (regardless of how they actually roll), you're deviating from the actual mechanics of the core resolution system wherein there are no degrees of success.

So, either way, you've got problems. Neither use of fiat (whcih is what the text is actually endorsing) would fly in my group -- one because it's unrealistic as all hell, the other because it explicitly departs from the written rules governing task resolution.

QuoteOkay, but I'm still curious to know where in the BFRPG rules this is stated.

Compare the thief table skill percentages to the percentage chances of rolling certain numbers (target numbers, per the rules for action resolution) on a d20. Somebody else had to point this out to me. The math is there, though I didn't see it at first. This is the biggest difference between BFRPG and C&C -- in BFRPG the math is there. Rules exist.

In the BFRPG, the GM isn't left having to make things work the way that they shoudl work because the system itself fails to do that. There are very few things in the BFRPG that rely entirely on a case-by-case judegement issued by the GM -- actual mechanics cover a lot of things left purely to fiat in C&C. The outcome and application of task resolution, for starters.

QuoteWTF?  Are you kidding?  There are many rules in C&C that I don't like

This is the first time I've ever heard of it and, frankly, I think it's just for show. To wit, I've pointed out specific examples of situations in C&C where the mechanics produce statistical weirdness of many sorts, and you've pointed to "fix it yourself" statements as evidence that such weirdness doesn't exist.

If such weirdness doesn't exist and the math is rock solid, why is so much case-by-case fiat necessary? Why don't the mechanics work the way that they should (per the cited text) out of the box? Why is it left entirely up to CK fiat to reign in these things? Why direct a CK to appply fiat if it isn't required?

You have yet to provide evidence of rock solid math in C&C. Instead, you're building my case for me, really -- providing endless examples of unbalanced math and a reliance entirely on CK fiat to smooth over statstical anomalies or enforce a reality which the actual mechanics don't.

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that any of this is wrong. What I am saying is that C&C's math is not internally consisitent and often does not produce the effects that it (apparently) "should" -- to wit, the text frequently turns to fiat in order to address these inconsistencies. I'm also saying that BFRPG does this much less frequently.

If internal consistency and mechanics that do what they're supposed to do 'out of the box' are important to somebody, I envision such a person having a hard go of C&C because of its extreme reliance on case-specific fiat to produce the results that mechanics (again, per the citext) should but often don't.

Paranoia.
 
It's not really like any of the games the OP mentioned, but a lot of old-school D&D players used to play Paranoia as their "alternate" game.  Shit, Hackmaster looks just like AD&D + Paranoia.

Quote from: jdrakehLearn math. Afterwards, compare the thief table skill percentages to the percentage chances of rolling certain numbers (target numbers, per the rules for action resolution) on a d20. Somebody else had to point this out to me. The math is there.

Actually your "math" doesn't add up.  A 1st level character makes a "roll against ability" in BFRPG to try an action against a target number equal to 17 or higher...a 20% chance to succeed without ability bonuses.

A thief has...
 25% Open Locks
 20% Remove Traps
 30% Pick Pockets
 25% Move Silently
 80% Climb Walls
 10% Hide
 30% Listen.

Without any ability bonuses every 1st level character is better at Hiding than the Thief, and equal when it comes to Removing Traps.

With just a plus one bonus to Dex, they are now better at both above and equal to the thief in Opening Locks & Moving Silently.

With a +2 he now owns the thief in four of his abilities and is equal to him in Picking Pockets

With a +3 (in whatever ability you ascribe to listening)he dominates the thief as well.

In fact it seems the only thing a thief is "guaranteed" to be better at than any other character(starting out) is climbing (which makes no sense when compared to his other abilities, and how common knowing how to climb is.).  Of course after a couple of levels...just like in C&C, this goes away.  What I personally don't like is that the Thief's Dex has no bearing on how good a thief he is in BFRPG.

Has anyone suggested: Fantasy Wargamming.

That's about as old school as you can get, assuming you can find a copy.  It's just about as old as Chainmail 3rd Ed, IIRC, and was one of the first gaming books.

The rules, of course, are slated more toward table top wargamming but there's role-playing elements.  If nothing else this would be a great historical curio to add to your library.

Quote from: Ghost_FaceActually your "math" doesn't add up.

Actually, you're incorrect. . . .

QuoteA 1st level character makes a "roll against ability" in BFRPG to try an action against a target number equal to 17 or higher...a 20% chance to succeed without ability bonuses

It's a 15% chance to succeed at a target difficulty of 17 -- or 10% to 65% less than the base chance of success for every thief skill, save for Remove Traps and Hide (it's 5% less than Remove Traps and equal to Hide).

QuoteWithout any ability bonuses every 1st level character is better at Hiding than the Thief, and equal when it comes to Removing Traps.

Wrong, of course. Every charcter is actually on-par with a thief when it comes to Hiding and 5% less likely to succeed when Removing Traps.

QuoteWith just a plus one bonus to Dex, they are now better at both above and equal to the thief in Opening Locks & Moving Silently.

Actually, they'll now be equally adept at Removing Traps as the thief is and 10% less likely to succeed when Picking Pockets.

QuoteWith a +2 he now owns the thief in four of his abilities and is equal to him in Picking Pockets

With a +2 Dex bonus, a non-thief is actually only better off at Removing Traps and Hiding (still). He's now on par with a thief when it comes to Opening Locks and Moving Silently.

QuoteWith a +3 (in whatever ability you ascribe to listening)he dominates the thief as well.

With a +3 in Dex, he'll be better to or equally likely to succeed than the theif for many abilities. Yes.

So, yes it is possible for non-Thieves to get a leg up on Thieves. It isn't, however, at all likely. First, you have to look at 3d6 probability outcomes. A player has a roughly 9.7% chance of rolling a result of 13 or better (for a +1 bonus), a 1.9% chance of rolling a result of 16 or better (for a +2 bonus), and a 0.5% chance of rolling an 18 (for a +3 bonus).

Then you have to look at how dice are rolled by default.

You roll dice and allocate scores in the order than the abilities appear on your sheet. So, the likelyhood of a non-Thief character having better abilities than a Thief due to a randomly generated Dex bonus of +1 is less than 2%. The chance of generating +2 or +3 bonuses is even more unlikely. So, I suppose, my assertion of "always" was incorrect.

That said, 1.6% random chance of bonus determination is less likely to crop up in actual play than the problem created by the deliberate selection of Primes in C&C (especially given that certain abilities in C&C have great mechanical impact, while others have next to none and, thus, rarely get selected as Primes for certain character types).

QuoteWhat I personally don't like is that the Thief's Dex has no bearing on how good a thief he is in BFRPG.

I don't like that either. That said, I like it better than a character's level having absolutely no bearing on how well they perform a wide variety of fairly mundane tasks.

Quote from: jdrakehActually, you're incorrect. . . .



It's a 15% chance to succeed at a target difficulty of 17 -- or 10% to 65% less than the base chance of success for every thief skill, save for Remove Traps and Hide (it's 5% less than Remove Traps and equal to Hide).

What? Okay let me get this straight...each +1 on a d20 is representative of 5%...rolling equal to or higher than a 17 breaks down like this...17=5% chance, 18=5% chance, 19=5% chance and 20=5% chance...20% chance to roll one of those four numbers on a d20,  I mean I'm right here, aren't I?  If not please explain it to me.

Quote from: jdrakeh...  
If you use the class level penalty, but only allow them to perform somewhat well (regardless of how they actually roll), you're deviating from the actual mechanics of the core resolution system wherein there are no degrees of success.

The nature of success is described by the CK.  The rules instruct the CK to describe success by a class in a class ability differently than success by a class in a non-class ability.  I don’t see the problem here.

In any case, I still don’t see why the possibility that a non-thief (or rogue, or whatever) might do better than a thief at very low levels in a few abilities is a big deal, or a problem with the game.  This possibility exists in 3e D&D, and people don’t freak out about it.

Quote from: jdrakeh...  
This is the first time I've ever heard of it and, frankly, I think it's just for show. To wit, I've pointed out specific examples of situations in C&C where the mechanics produce statistical weirdness of many sorts, and you've pointed to "fix it yourself" statements as evidence that such weirdness doesn't exist.

Thanks for the gratuitous insult (and really, since you haven’t read every post I’ve ever written about C&C, how the fuck would you know the extent to which I’ve criticized it?).  

For the record, I still don’t see why C&C produces ‘statistical weirdness of many sorts’.  Your only example is that non-rogues might, under very special circumstances, be slightly better than rogues in some rogue abilities at very low levels.  Big deal.

 

Quote from: jdrakeh...  
 … Instead, you're building my case for me, really -- providing endless examples of unbalanced math and a reliance entirely on CK fiat to smooth over statstical anomalies or enforce a reality which the actual mechanics don't.

I’m still not seeing the ‘statistical anomalies’, aside from your lame rogue example.

Finally, I’ve got nothing against BFRPG, in fact I quite like it, but you have yet to provide any textual support that it doesn’t rely on GM fiat just as much as C&C.

Akrasia & jdrakeh, would you kindly stop fucking up an interesting thread with unrelated mile-long posts? :pundit: