Quote from: MaddmanBut there's an essential difference.  The only thing seperating the 9th level D&D fighter and a peasant is experience, work, and training.  They are still the same manner of being.  Not so with the Exalts - they are superior, better in many ways from the throng of humanity.  No matter how hard he works, how much he trains, or even how valuable his gear is a mortal will never be more than a speedbump to one of the Exalted.

And that affects the game in what respect? After all, all the player's are one the same power level, most of their enemies are roughly equivalent. Apart from some exposition-level stuff, this is a very minor detail.

And it's a minor detail that isn't even absent in D&D. No matter how mouch you do push-ups and go to the library, you'll never be a elf or paladin. This varies a lot between D&D campaign, of course. But in earlier editions, anything that wasn't a 0-level peasant was extraordinary. Third editon has its NPC classes, which are highly inferior compared to the heroic vocations. Some settings emphasize this even more (Eberron, Birthright).

It's just a McGuffin to drive the players into a certain kind of action. You're hunted, you're the enemy of the system. No go, X-Men, erm, I mean X-alted...

Quote from: MaddmanHow much Exalted have you played?  They generally don't go 'on adventures' as such, at least as I've played it (and people I've talked online have done it).  No dungeons to speak of in Creation (unless you count the Labrynth).  Dragons are more forces of nature than big foes with lots of treasure.  And I put it much closer to Marvel Superheroes than D&D - Exalted is essentially a supers game with fantasy trappings.

Well, then what did you do in your adventures? From what I've read in the books and online, it seems that a string of opponents with escalating power levels seems rather common, as opposed to the primarily defensive role of superheroes.
That's when you're going the "overthrow the system" route. Yes, I agree that doing that you'll often have other obstacles than traps and monsters. But the general narrative isn't different enough to warrant a separate game category. It might not be "Against the Giants", but that wasn't all of D&D either (Dark Sun comes to mind).

Quote from: MaddmanAgain, can't really agree.  Yes, the Castes map pretty well to the fighter, cleric, mage, thief, and bard archetypes but they aren't restrictive classes.  You can make a Dawn that slings sorcery, or a night that's a melee monster, or an Eclipse that is a master of stealth.  These are by no means crippled characters.  I don't see the hoops needed to avoid something unplayable - you can take any skill and build an effective Solar out of it.  Finest chef in Creation - no problem!  A master poet whose words are so powerful that any who read them fall in love with the writer?  We could do that.

So the "classes" aren't as rigid as D&D 1E. That doesn't make it into a whole new game, too. 3E can do some pretty funky stuff with skills, feats and multi-classing amongst base and prestige classes. But at the core you have some kind of mechanic that emphasizes archetypical characters, each with a certain niche he can fill out. "Role"-playing in the Gygaxian sense.

Quote from: MaddmanThe games are really very different from each other.  If Exalted were D&D with some asian trappings I wouldn't be interested in it.

I think now we're hitting the spot -- and we're getting back on topic a little more. Some people have a very narrow definition of what "D&D" (and lately "D20") is all about -- and feel they've matured beyond it or something similar. But just putting other visuals on top of the same skeleton, doesn't turn the gaming experience into another creature. That's one of the reasons why D20 gets all that "hate". If your game uses the same core rule system than the current incarnation of D&D, you're _obviously_ still playing "just" D&D.

I've heard all of those arguments in the nineties, back then it wasn't Exalted (or Buffy/Burning Wheel/RoS...), but Shadowrun and Vampire. And quite a lot of the game play wasn't all that different.

Just coming from the rules and the default setting, it's closer to D&D than either Pendragon or Ars Magica. But I might be wrong, so tell me about the "typical" Exalted campaign structure and how it's all that different.

QuoteAnd that affects the game in what respect? After all, all the player's are one the same power level, most of their enemies are roughly equivalent. Apart from some exposition-level stuff, this is a very minor detail.

And it's a minor detail that isn't even absent in D&D. No matter how mouch you do push-ups and go to the library, you'll never be a elf or paladin. This varies a lot between D&D campaign, of course. But in earlier editions, anything that wasn't a 0-level peasant was extraordinary. Third editon has its NPC classes, which are highly inferior compared to the heroic vocations. Some settings emphasize this even more (Eberron, Birthright).

They weren't the same as an Exalt though.  The PCs in Exalted are demigods.  The difference is that even at higher levels there is someone else in charge.  A king, the overlord, someone.  Starting Exalts can kick the crap out of these characters.  They can defeat armies, found religions, remake Creation to their liking eventually.  The essential differences is that D&D heroes explore or save the world.  The Exalts rule it.  Their ability to affect the setting goes beyond what even high level D&D characters can achieve.

As a result the games ask different questions.  D&D asks 'can you defeat these foes?' while Exalted asks 'what will you do with your power?'  Of course there are as many kinds of games as GMs, but this is what IMO and IME the two games produce.

Quote from: SosthenesI think now we're hitting the spot -- and we're getting back on topic a little more. Some people have a very narrow definition of what "D&D" (and lately "D20") is all about -- and feel they've matured beyond it or something similar. But just putting other visuals on top of the same skeleton, doesn't turn the gaming experience into another creature. That's one of the reasons why D20 gets all that "hate". If your game uses the same core rule system than the current incarnation of D&D, you're _obviously_ still playing "just" D&D.

I've heard all of those arguments in the nineties, back then it wasn't Exalted (or Buffy/Burning Wheel/RoS...), but Shadowrun and Vampire. And quite a lot of the game play wasn't all that different.

Just coming from the rules and the default setting, it's closer to D&D than either Pendragon or Ars Magica. But I might be wrong, so tell me about the "typical" Exalted campaign structure and how it's all that different.

I don't hate D&D.  I've played a lot of D&D in my time.  I'm bored with it, and it isn't just the system.  Fighters, magic-users, orc tribes, dungeons, traps, dragons with hordes of treasure.  Been there, done that.  There's nothing wrong with it, and D&D in another system I'd find about as unappealing.

As for the typical Exalted campaign, let me look at the core book.  It lists several game styles including 'Vanilla Exalted' on page 262.  "The most obvious Exalted game involves the Solar Exalted returning to the world, evading the Wyld Hunt, establishing a power base, conquering the surrounding regions and fighting against the minions of the Scarlet Empress." In contrast, the typical D&D game has the characters as a competent yet mundane group of characters with different skills that band together to fight monsters, explore lost ruins and dungeons, and defeat evil overlords.

The gameplay differs primarily in the power level of the PCs, as mentioned above.  My latest campaign has an ancient First Age library rising from the ruined portions of a huge city for all to see, the Wyld Hunt called to hunt for the Solars, and all of Heaven in a panic over what these characters will do.  I didn't plan for any of it, it's just what they did.  And that was only the first session.

You seem to be arguing that all games are basically D&D with different trappings, and quite simply that has not been my experience.  If it's been yours, I'd blame the GMs for making that assumption.  My Exalted, Buffy, AFMBE, and D&D experiences have all been very different.

I do't have the time or energy to hate d20.  I can only afford to not dig it.

Got lotsa cool d20 stuff, though...

Maddman, the point stands that D&D and Exalted are still skinning the same cat.  You've described differences between D&D and Exalted that all come down to power level and fluff.  By doing this you sell both games short.

A hypothetical level 20+ D&D 3e party could have Wishes on tap, the fealty of several minor gods and devils, pet Manticores (Manticorae?), extradimensional strongholds and weapons that can crack the earth itself.  (As an aside, RC D&D PCs over 9th level are expected to either rule over a region or have a damn good reason not to.  It is not unreasonable to expect that a character who forgoes godhood at 36th level would eventually go on to conquer most of the world.)  This hypothetical party is not so different from an Exalted circle with some major experience under its belt.

If you wanted to highlight the differences between d20 and Exalted, you might do better to bring up the "CCG style combat" you referenced earlier.  The Charm system, its interaction with the Essence mechanic (and, for that matter, the way the Stunt mechanic interacts with both) and the way they both resemble video- and cardgame mechanics might be a better angle of argument.

The tactical decisions favored by each system are also an illuminating difference.  Note that battles of maneuver seem actively discouraged by the Exalted rules, notably by the ability of characters in combat to move on each combat tick.  In D&D, character movement is slower, allowing for a smaller, more static battlefield (such as could be represented by a grid and miniatures should the DM wish to do so.)

I don't know enough about either system to lay out all the differences with any sort of authority, but I do know I don't need fistfuls of d10s to do manga fantasy or stable boys and dungeon crawls to do D&D.

I've been thinking a little about the discussion and while I still think the power difference isn't that much a factor, if not completely negligible, I have to agree with Maddman that the starting mindset of the characters is different. I said before, that Exalted just skips the beginning of the typical D&D campaign structure and thus the two games are rather similar.

But then I noticed that this structure might not be as typical anymore. The economical situation of third edition is different, magic items aren't as special anymore. And levelling happens a lot faster. So there are a lot of groups who continue the smash-and-loot experience 'til 20th level and stop afterwards. No keeps, towers and thieves' guilds, no domains, no quests for immortality.
I think the earlier editions often encouraged something different. Once you reach the two-digits levels, just going through dungeon and wilderness adventures seemed odd and you progressed to more important things, back in the days even possibly transcending your mortal form.

There are still lots of D&D settings, where a higher purpose is evident and "what you do with your powers" is a major factor. Birthright, Dark Sun, Red Steel, Midnight, Dawnforge, even the Forgotten Realms and Eberron to a lesser degree.

Apart from that, I still think the basic gameplay of both D&D and Exalted is surmounting escalating obstacles. Whether you conquer something or clean up a dungeon is secondary. And all the people jumping miles high and flattening houses is a mere visual distinction. If the players get more out of "The Drunken Gibbon Comes to Town" than "Power Attack", it's a matter of style. In the end, we're beating up enemies.

Quote from: SosthenesThere are still lots of D&D settings, where a higher purpose is evident and "what you do with your powers" is a major factor. Birthright, Dark Sun, Red Steel, Midnight, Dawnforge, even the Forgotten Realms and Eberron to a lesser degree.

However, this is optional and an afterthought.  In Exalted it's built into the system.  Every character (well, every Solar character) has an epic motivation, something grand they want to accomplish.  THis is not optional and has game mechanical effects.  A character that doesn't want to change the world quite simply isn't the kind of person that becomes an Exalt.

Quote from: MaddmanHowever, this is optional and an afterthought.

That's what you get when you separate setting from the rules. And in lots of the settings I've mentioned, this is as fundamental as in Exalted. And if they would reprint the basic D20 in their setting book, they'd even have _exactly_ the same packaging as Exalted.

There are more mechanics in Exalted that let you do "cool stuff" then there are mechanics that let you reflect your personal world view. And I'm glad for that, or we'd get yet another touchy-feely thematic grab-bag of pop psychology.

Kickin' ass for ale & wenches, kickin' ass for The God-Created Master-Race, in the end some kinetic force is applied to some unlucky chap's posterior. Motivation changes your perception of it, but the game play is similar enough.

It's not what you're underneath, it's what you do that defines you.

Quote from: SosthenesThat's what you get when you separate setting from the rules. And in lots of the settings I've mentioned, this is as fundamental as in Exalted. And if they would reprint the basic D20 in their setting book, they'd even have _exactly_ the same packaging as Exalted.

Really.  So in how many of these settings is there a place on the character sheet for "Motivation" and "Intimicies"?  (Intimicies being people or objects important to you)  These things have concrete game effect - it's harder to use social skills if it threatens someone's intimicies to go along with it, and you get rewards for fulfilling your Motivation.

I think we're at an impasse, I've had very different gameplay experiences with Exalted and D&D.

Quote from: MaddmanReally.  So in how many of these settings is there a place on the character sheet for "Motivation" and "Intimicies"?  (Intimicies being people or objects important to you)  These things have concrete game effect - it's harder to use social skills if it threatens someone's intimicies to go along with it, and you get rewards for fulfilling your Motivation.

I think we've got slightly different definitions of "gameplay", that's all.

But let's disregard the D&D vs. Exalted argument for a while. I think that view is highly interesting. Exalted has lots of detail regarding combat and similar tactical gameplay. Compared to that (and to thematic games on the other hand), the background stuff is pretty basic (and some of it comes from the Storyteller background, e.g. Nature).

Now, about every game I ever played had the players making some background story. Often this resulted in trite pieces of fiction, so that in recent years I've been sticking to some kind of questionnaire. Important people, way to look at things, how you will die ("will", not "want"). As a GM, I use this quite a lot. Some games have this as part (often the first) of character creation, SR's 20 questions come to mind.

So my question (and don't take this as patronizing or something like that, I'm honestly interested in other people's way to play): Would your characters have behaved differently if they didn't have their background represented as part of the rules? Would they have succeeded more/less in their endeavors?

(BTW, D&D always had one such system: alignments. Most D20 versions abolish that without providing any similar rules.)

Quote from: SosthenesSo my question (and don't take this as patronizing or something like that, I'm honestly interested in other people's way to play): Would your characters have behaved differently if they didn't have their background represented as part of the rules? Would they have succeeded more/less in their endeavors?

(BTW, D&D always had one such system: alignments. Most D20 versions abolish that without providing any similar rules.)

Yes - the entire game would not have taken the turn that it did.  Yes, most players in any game will come up with some kind of background or concept.  By having the rules require the character to define their motivation and making it important it ensures that they pay some thought to it.  And the gameplay is entirely driven by this.  I don't put any kind of plot out there, I set up an environment and they try to achieve their goals.  Again, this goal is defined by the game so every character HAS to have an appropriate one.

We haven't played with the social combat rules, but once we do they will be even more important.  The motivations and intimicies determine what your character can be influenced about and how easily, it's a really interesting system.

I never cared for alignments, they were more 'football teams' than moral systems.  If the human kills the orcs because they raid his village and the orc does the same then we don't have right and wrong.  We have us and them.  Which is fine, but the names imply one is right and the other is not.  I don't find that mechanic useful at all.

But in general I'm a 'system matters' kind of guy.  The GM isn't constrained by the system - he's going to do whatever the hell he wants anyway.  But the players are.  The rules determine what makes for a good idea or a bad idea, what will work and what won't.  The system isn't everything, but it influences the kind of play you get.

Well, I still don't hate d20, but at this rate I might soon.

What I do hate are people who A. Tell me I hate to like d20 or I hate and and B. people who tell me that d20 is the only fucking system worth a damn.

Quote from: MaddmanReally.  So in how many of these settings is there a place on the character sheet for "Motivation" and "Intimicies"?  (Intimicies being people or objects important to you)  These things have concrete game effect - it's harder to use social skills if it threatens someone's intimicies to go along with it, and you get rewards for fulfilling your Motivation.

I'm a bit leery of personality mechanics and find them a bit bossy and VERY easy to screw up.

Sometimes, you've just got to role play and not lean on the rules to do it for you.

Personality mechanics are fucking awful.

Quote from: Abyssal MawPersonality mechanics are fucking awful.

I'm curious why.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI'm curious why.

And I'm curious as to which ones.  Are we talking "D&D Alignment" here?

-Andy