TheRPGSite

The title sums it up pretty well. I don't hate d20, I just don't play it or like it.

Now why do people have to accuse me of hating d20 because of that? I do not HATE d20. I simply don't like it because mostly it doesn't use hit locations and it does mostly use classes and levels. I like hit locations and I do not like classes and levels. That doesn't mean I hate d20, it just means I don't like/play it.

I wonder why d20 players have to accuse everyone who doesn't like their system of 'hating' it? is it because they feel if they can make believe that anyone who doesn't like d20 "hates" it they can then dismiss their reasons for disliking it because they're based on "hate"?

JFTR, I do not hate d20 and have seen some d20 prods that made me wish that it was more to my liking. I've even given favorable reviews of d20 prods when they deserved it, so I do not hate d20, I just don't like it or play it because some of the mechanics are far from my liking.

I wish people who liked it would stop saying I "hated" it.

Hater! :p

I've never seen the problem with Hate.  It's a fine emotion and most useful when dealing with idiots.  After all, there are some films that I hate and there are loads of books and Tv programmes that I hate and surely I'm not alone in this sentiment.

What is weird though is that you can't hate a game.  Within the RPG community the term "hate" has come to be re-defined not as a strong negative reaction to something but a wholly inappropriate and irrational negative emotional reaction to something.

This is because RPGs don't have the same aesthetics as many other forms of media.  I think this is due to the fact that many gamers identify themselves closely with the games they play so while it's perfectly okay for me to talk about how much your favourite film or TV series sucks (though on RPGnet this is seen bizarrely as threadcrapping), it's unacceptable for me to say how much your favourite game sucks.

So instead we have these weird code phrases that we use when talking about games.

For example...

A game isn't ever "bungled by hacks masquerading as designers", it is simply "broken".

A game isn't "shit", it's "not for me".

I think this state of affairs has come about because there are no universal aesthetic criteria for RPGs.  With books it's undeniable that correct grammar and a large vocabulary are better than poor sentence construction and everyone being described as "nice", with films every film should be appropriately paced and it's pretty obvious when someone is acting well and when someone is acting poorly.

I think the main problem is that games, as written entities, aren't what the hobby is all about.  When it comes to actual RPG sessions then we can all agree on what makes for a good game; cool NPCs, interesting challenges, nice balancing of risk and return, having a laugh...

The truth is that when we attempt to criticise games as written entities, it's the same as trying to do art criticism on the basis of a series of notes written down by the artist.  All you can ever talk about is what you think about them because everyone will take something different away.

'Hate' is an awfully strong emotion to expend on a game. It seems to me that there are much more worthy targets: like landlords, politicians, and small, snappy dogs.

There isn't any music I hate, to make a tired analogy. There's music that bores me, there's music I'd never buy, there's music I wouldn't listen to by preference. I don't see the sense in hating Jessica Simpson because she makes hack music and sells it with sex. I just don't buy it. I'm indifferent to her career.

Well, FWIW, I never assume that anyone who starts a thread about recognizing what D&D has done for the hobby as a archetypal member of the D20-hatah club.

Now Texans, on the other hand...


But their is a body of reactionary D&D/d20 haters. RPGnet used to host a large number of them. But ever RPGnet came to mock and marginalize some of the most unreasonable frothers.

Seems to me there are different groups of naysayers.

- There's your old-school grogs who are still playing with their brown box books held together with tape, who think 3e is new-fangled crap.

- There's your fed-up-to-the-back-teeth campaigner who's been forced to play just a bit too much d20 and wants a change – violently.

- There's the fading remnants of the 80s and 90s gamers who looked down on D&D as 'unrealistic' or 'munchkiny'.


Have I missed any?

Quote from: droogHave I missed any?

The more significant group whose tastes run a different way and feel threatened by the fact that they are in the minority and go to extremes of bashing and rationalization to receive validation that the majority that plays D&D are somehow objectively wrong/foolish/stupid/uninformed/responsible for all their gaming ills.

I don't.  But I assume that those who threadcap in D&D related threads have either have issues with D&D or have issues.

I'm not talking about negative posts in threads discussing the pros and cons of D&D - that's to be expected.  But when someone has a thread about something they're doing with D&D (or some other game) and someone feels the need to jump in and say the game sucks, that demonstrates emotional involvement with the game in a bad way.

There's a group of people who say they don't like D20, but mean D&D. Quite understandable, as third-party products for the default D&D way of playing are sold under the label D20. That there are several game systems who severly modify both the rules and style of play, is beyond them. So the hate for D20 is hate for high fantasy, dungeon adventure or "gamism" itself. Most of those people have way too many cats and play Exalted.

QuoteMost of those people have way too many cats and play Exalted.

I don't know about the cats part, but I do think the Exalted thing is amusing (and possibly true). Ironic, because Exalted is pretty much D&D in a modified Storyteller system with Roman and East Asian aesthetic instead of a medieval/Tolkien one.

I don't make the assumption that anyone who says they don't like d20 actually hate it. I might make that assumption if the person consistently posts how they don't like d20 for one reason or the other. This is particularly true if such posts show up in any given discussion about d20 itself, time after time, as if the poster just can't countenance any discussion of d20 without chiming in about how they don't like it.

Put me in the "doesn't really give a fuck what anyone else thinks anymore because he knows what he likes" camp. :cool:

Hell, if you think d20 fans react that way, tell a Palladium fan that their system could use a little work.  Watch the vicious bile fly.

"If your hat know no limit, you must admit.. er.. it. "

-undead Johnny Cochran.

Quote from: SosthenesMost of those people have way too many cats and play Exalted.

  That's an interesting thought.

  If a woman owns loads of cats then it's "obviously" because she's a lonely spinster who desperately wants babies.  It's laughed about but it's widely accepted as a way to go.

  But a guy in his mid forties who lives alone and has like 6 cats?  I don't know about you but there's something incredibly unwholesome about that mental image.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThe more significant group whose tastes run a different way and feel threatened by the fact that they are in the minority and go to extremes of bashing and rationalization to receive validation that the majority that plays D&D are somehow objectively wrong/foolish/stupid/uninformed/responsible for all their gaming ills.

Now, see, I think this group is negligible. But I think the perception that it exists in great numbers is what Dominus Nox is talking about.

I'm not thrilled by standard D20 and don't really want to play it. I don't hate D&D style high fantasy, but I can't get into it at all. Playing a straight up D&D game (regardless of edition or mechaniics) holds no interest for me. However, I am, as I have stated before, a bitch for True20- which is a d20 varient, but really plays very differently.

Personally, I don't have the energy or the free time to devote to hating any particular system...my personal philosophy is "if it's a game, Ill play it."

I don't think anyone who dislikes any particular system hates it.

The main reason is because many of the people that talk about D20 in a negative way in fact hate D20 in an irrational way, and for irrational reasons, and make claims about D20 that are simply not true; or fundamentally despise it not for its own qualities, but because its the most popular (they're trying to be "rebels", which in the context of gaming is really pathetic).

If you just don't like D20 or don't give a shit about it, that's no big deal with anyone.
For example, I don't like HERO, but I don't have a hatred for it that resounds with every fibre of my being. Ditto with Shadowrun.

Whereas, if you spend an inordinate amount of your time preaching against D20/D&D, and making all kinds of bullshit claims about the "inferiority" of D20, then you're a hater.

RPGPundit

Quote from: joewolzPersonally, I don't have the energy or the free time to devote to hating any particular system...my personal philosophy is "if it's a game, Ill play it."

I don't think anyone who dislikes any particular system hates it.

This is where I am. I have never, given I'm playing with a group of players I like, had a bad time playing ANY game no matter what my personal opinion of it was. There are games I personally prefer for any number of reasons, but my opinion is that my enjoyment of a given gaming session is gonna be determined by the PLAYERS in my group so much more than the GAME we are playing that the game itself is reduced to almost no importance. So I really have never found the need to "hate" any game.

One interesting tidbit is that I have never seemed to get along with WoD players enough to join their group. I have had 2 opportunities, but passed both times... guess that says something about my tastes, although I still don't hate WoD.

Quote from: droogNow, see, I think this group is negligible.

Oh, they probably are in meatspace. Most people I know in real life happily wander between d20, WoD, and other games.

But RPGnet and various other fora tend to put a magnifying glass on this sort.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadBut RPGnet and various other fora tend to put a magnifying glass on this sort.

To see them burn in pain? :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceTo see them burn in pain? :D

Oh, I've seen a few ignite in flames. Anyone else remember Kamikaze?

Quote from: Caesar SlaadOh, I've seen a few ignite in flames. Anyone else remember Kamikaze?

LINKPLZKTHX.

I have an unholy fascination with internet drama.  I love how anything that could be settled with a five-minute sitdown (or ten-second throwdown) in the real world always blossoms into a fifteen page thread that ends in a nuclear meltdown of personality cults.

Quote from: fonkaygarryLINKPLZKTHX.

I have an unholy fascination with internet drama.  I love how anything that could be settled with a five-minute sitdown (or ten-second throwdown) in the real world always blossoms into a fifteen page thread that ends in a nuclear meltdown of personality cults.

Wow. That's sig-worthy if anything is. Great fuckin' post.

EDIT: 'Course, now my sig is getting to be ridiculously large.

Quote from: fonkaygarryI have an unholy fascination with internet drama.  I love how anything that could be settled with a five-minute sitdown (or ten-second throwdown) in the real world always blossoms into a fifteen page thread that ends in a nuclear meltdown of personality cults.

Hmm, maybe Uwe Boll had the right approach (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/25/moviedirector.boxing.ap/index.html) after all...

Quote from: Dominus NoxI wish people who liked it would stop saying I "hated" it.

Because it's so much easier this way esp on internet forums. I mean, arguing with someone who you think hates (even though it's probably not the case) the game you love is a whole  lot more satifying than walking away from a rational discussion and getting on with playing a game you claim to love so dearly.

I mean, sometimes I think the people who say they love a game - any game -but defend it to the point of absudity do more damage to the game, than the people who don't like it or hate it.

Also, you can bet your last dollar, than on any threads where a specific game is being discussed and the general consensus is that the game is cool, you will always get someone jumping in and stirring shit. When this happens, the ones who don't like the game in question will be lumped together with the ones who actually hate the game (for whatever reasons).

Regards,
David R

Quote from: dsivisI don't know about the cats part, but I do think the Exalted thing is amusing (and possibly true). Ironic, because Exalted is pretty much D&D in a modified Storyteller system with Roman and East Asian aesthetic instead of a medieval/Tolkien one.

I really couldn't disagree with that more.  Exalted is very, very fundamentally different that D&D.  The base assumptions are even at odds, with D&D assuming the characters start out weak and grow stronger, will react to elements introduced by the GM, and have combat mechanics derived from wargaming roots.  Exalted assumed the characters start out incredibly powerful, will be 'movers and shakers' and it will be them changing the setting not the other way around, and has combat mechanics derived from CCG play.  I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they are apples and oranges.

As for the topic, it happens in lots of areas where people start feeling snobby about something.  This happens usually with younger folks, or occasionally older immature ones.  They have low self esteem and/or a low sense of self identity and therefore attach their self-worth to their interests.  And anyone who doesn't share their interests is clearly idiotic or immoral.  It's the same flavor of person that hates others because they listen to a certain kind of music or wear or don't wear certain fashions.  It isn't enough to simply not like something it sort of becomes a political statement.

Most of these people (I like to think) eventually grow out of it.  I don't care for D&D much these days myself, but I've had fun with it in the past.  Looking for something else now, but if someone else still gets off on elves and fighters and 10' corridors, rock on man.

Quote from: MaddmanI really couldn't disagree with that more.  Exalted is very, very fundamentally different that D&D.  The base assumptions are even at odds, with D&D assuming the characters start out weak and grow stronger, will react to elements introduced by the GM, and have combat mechanics derived from wargaming roots.  Exalted assumed the characters start out incredibly powerful, will be 'movers and shakers' and it will be them changing the setting not the other way around, and has combat mechanics derived from CCG play.  I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they are apples and oranges.

This hasn't been the first time I read this, and I have to say that the argument is pretty weak. Yes, most D&D games start at a pretty low power level. But this doesn't totally define the game. After the first few sessions, you're more powerful than any common man. I'd say the power difference between a mid-level D&D character and a common orc is a little bigger than that between a Solar Exalted and a Dragon-Blooded foe... And even the earlier D&D editions had quite some way to go _after_ you've become a mover & shaker. "Name level" is 9, and not all campaigns retired there...

The whole adventuring paradigm doesn't differ too much between 'normal' campaigns of the two systems. And Exalted crave for more power, too, it's not like they enter the world as full-fledged superheroes and stay at that level forever. In that way, Exalted is certainly closer to D&D than Marvel Superheroes...
And they've got a pretty good role separation, as is tradition with WW games. I don't see a big difference between Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief on the one hand and the Solar castes on the other hand...

Then again, _most_ role-playing games can be played that way. One has to jump through several razor-edged hoops to achieve something remarkably different. And you often end up with something rather unplayable.

Quote from: SosthenesThis hasn't been the first time I read this, and I have to say that the argument is pretty weak. Yes, most D&D games start at a pretty low power level. But this doesn't totally define the game. After the first few sessions, you're more powerful than any common man. I'd say the power difference between a mid-level D&D character and a common orc is a little bigger than that between a Solar Exalted and a Dragon-Blooded foe... And even the earlier D&D editions had quite some way to go _after_ you've become a mover & shaker. "Name level" is 9, and not all campaigns retired there...

But 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.

QuoteThe whole adventuring paradigm doesn't differ too much between 'normal' campaigns of the two systems. And Exalted crave for more power, too, it's not like they enter the world as full-fledged superheroes and stay at that level forever. In that way, Exalted is certainly closer to D&D than Marvel Superheroes...

How 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.

QuoteAnd they've got a pretty good role separation, as is tradition with WW games. I don't see a big difference between Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief on the one hand and the Solar castes on the other hand...

Then again, _most_ role-playing games can be played that way. One has to jump through several razor-edged hoops to achieve something remarkably different. And you often end up with something rather unplayable.[/QUOTE]

Again, 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.

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

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

Quote from: Andy KAnd I'm curious as to which ones.  Are we talking "D&D Alignment" here?

-Andy

Damn you, Andy!  :muttering:

I was going to wait for answers before the "Yeah, you're right, Holy Smite and its cousins are such a fucking (cop-out/waste of time/abomination)".

I mean, I'm geniunely interested in an actual argument that "Can't Abide Weakness In Himself" or "Devoted To The King" aren't as valid for mechanical impact as "Dedicated His Life To Archery" or "Wizard Of The Unseen University", but I was hoping to get the alignment dig in.

Bastard. :D

I don't see the modern take on D&D alignment as a personality mechanic, but I think in a more AD&D2 interpretation, it certainly qualifies as bad.

Currently D&D alignment isn't really a personality mechanic. Your alignment determines things like "what items you can use" or "what prestige classes you can get into". It doesn't actually interfere with your roleplaying that much. You can have a character be a total jerk, mark 'lawful good' on there and have no problems whatsoever.

In AD&D2, alignment was used in a bludgeoning sort of way. My revised AD&D2 PHB actually has an example: a lawful neutral character goes on a few aventures... the DM comes to the decision that she's been performing a lot of good acts lately, so he changes her alignment to Lawful good, then he docks her 1 and a half levels worth of XP. It's almost like they wanted the game to fail.

I recall in the day of AD&D2 there was constantly a discussion going on about "what does lawful good mean?" and it just got unbelievably stupid after a while. I'm totally convinced the real reason those discussions went on, is because people were concerned about getting blindsided by someone saying "your'e not playing your alignment" and then getting an XP penalty...  or they didn't want to be looked at as being a "roll player vs. a real role-player".

However, that's just what I think sucks about the old take on alignment. I (pretty much) like the way it works just fine now. I also liked how it worked in basic D&D when it was just lawful, chaotic and neutral. Those were fine.

But personality mechanics are so fucking awful. That thing where you stick something like (Christmas Ape's example) "Can't Abide Weakness In Himself" on the character sheet and play that.. well.. first of all, it locks you into a very static character. You've essentially played the character out before you even get a chance to use him in a game. Now he's either the character that can't abide weakness in himself, or he's the character that was forced at some point by some GM-hammering to deal with abiding weakness in himself. But either way, he didn't get to develop naturally into being a unique character. It's just this totally artificial foil for whatever issue you stuck him with when you created him.

In a normal long term campaign, you have no idea what your character really is going to develop into. I can think of several examples from my roleplaying past where I had this concept for a character when I started, but 6-12 months later, the character had developed into a much more complex personality than what I had kind of thought at first- it's one of the great joys of roleplaying to see what comes out over time. If you rely on things like personality mechanics, you won't get to appreciate it- it just won't happen for you. So in that way, yeah, I'm saying that personality mechanics make a game less fun.

Two examples:
One example is from a game I was the GM for: there was a character named Archie. Archie started out as this optimistic happy-go-lucky "salesman" type character when he first entered the campaign. But slowly he became a lot more serious- by the campaign wrapped up (over a year later) he had been through so much that he had turned into this sort of grimly determined ronin type character.  

My second example was one of my own characters: I had an "absent-minded professor" type character that ended up stranded on this savage island as part of the campaign. He starts out doing what I thought his personality was supposed to be- sort of an academic fish out of water, who would do things like -- when he ended up in an evil temple, he would tell the high priest that the place had "fascinating architecture" and ask him when it was built. But he changed over time too- he became a lot darker the more ancient secrets he uncovered- until I sort of a did a "Kurtz from Heart of Darkness" bit near the end of the campaign.

Those characters had freedom to develop in the awesome way they did because they weren't saddled with "love for humanity 6d6" (or something similarly idiotic) on their character sheet.

Although I guess for short term games you'd have to have something like that. What I'm talking about takes time. I generally don't start to 'feel' a real personality start to develop until maybe the 3rd or 4th session, but the payoff is huge.

Quote from: Christmas ApeDamn you, Andy!  :muttering:

I was going to wait for answers before the "Yeah, you're right, Holy Smite and its cousins are such a fucking (cop-out/waste of time/abomination)".

I mean, I'm geniunely interested in an actual argument that "Can't Abide Weakness In Himself" or "Devoted To The King" aren't as valid for mechanical impact as "Dedicated His Life To Archery" or "Wizard Of The Unseen University", but I was hoping to get the alignment dig in.

Bastard. :D

But Holy smite doesn't change your personality or force you into a roleplaying box. It just does some extra damage.  Your'e welcome to yell out "in the name of Pelor!" when you do it, but it's totally optional.

EDIT: Also, I just backspaced a few pages and I noted that this is totally not the topic this started out as. Probably my fault. Someone else can feel free to split the topic off.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIn AD&D2, alignment was used in a bludgeoning sort of way. My revised AD&D2 PHB actually has an example: a lawful neutral character goes on a few aventures... the DM comes to the decision that she's been performing a lot of good acts lately, so he changes her alignment to Lawful good, then he docks her 1 and a half levels worth of XP. It's almost like they wanted the game to fail.

I recall in the day of AD&D2 there was constantly a discussion going on about "what does lawful good mean?" and it just got unbelievably stupid after a while. I'm totally convinced the real reason those discussions went on, is because people were concerned about getting blindsided by someone saying "your'e not playing your alignment" and then getting an XP penalty...  or they didn't want to be looked at as being a "roll player vs. a real role-player".

For all this and the stuff I snipped out, I'm with you 110%. I don't really like alignment one way or the other, but I'm certainly on board with the idea that 2nd Edition Alignment was a fucking train wreck.

QuoteThat thing where you stick something like (Christmas Ape's example) "Can't Abide Weakness In Himself" on the character sheet and play that.. well.. first of all, it locks you into a very static character. You've essentially played the character out before you even get a chance to use him in a game. Now he's either the character that can't abide weakness in himself, or he's the character that was forced at some point by some GM-hammering to deal with abiding weakness in himself. But either way, he didn't get to develop naturally into being a unique character. It's just this totally artificial foil for whatever issue you stuck him with when you created him.

In a normal long term campaign, you have no idea what your character really is going to develop into. I can think of several examples from my roleplaying past where I had this concept for a character when I started, but 6-12 months later, the character had developed into a much more complex personality than what I had kind of thought at first- it's one of the joys of roleplaying to see what comes out over time.

Alright, I think we're just at it from two different sides, and that's cool. I don't see these traits as being, ultimately, any different from class level or skill ranks; a feature of the character you decided on creation. He's no more locked into that mindset than writing "Fighter 1" on the sheet means you can only ever wear armor, hit things with swords, and run in terror of displacer beasts. All this shit could, should, and almost certainly will change. Nor is having developed that mindset - from, say, a stern disciplinarian parent who didn't believe in displays of emotion - make that character any more 'played out' than the fact he's had training in, say, armor use, fighting with a longsword, and keeping a shield between him and the foe.

This is all just IMO, and I'm sure some disagree. I'm not happy being locked into anything either, but I don't think having traits that describe the character's personality in terms that can give it mechanical weight in the system of choice is any more restrictive than having 'Strength' set at a number when the game starts.

QuoteTwo examples:
One example is from a game I was the GM for: there was a character named Archie. Archie started out as this optimistic happy-go-lucky "salesman" type character when he first entered the campaign. But slowly he became a lot more serious- by the campaign wrapped up (over a year later) he had been through so much that he had turned into this sort of grimly determined ronin type character.  

My second example was one of my own characters: I had an "absent-minded professor" type character that ended up stranded on this savage island as part of the campaign. He starts out doing what I thought his personality was supposed to be- sort of an academic fish out of water, who would do things like -- when he ended up in an evil temple, he would tell the high priest that the place had "fascinating architecture" and ask him when it was built. But he changed over time too- he became a lot darker the more ancient secrets he uncovered- until I sort of a did a "Kurtz from Heart of Darkness" bit near the end of the campaign.

As an aside, and not to pick on you in any way, but I've noticed that not one of these stories that I've ever heard has characters becoming better-adjusted by the end of their development. Always darker, harder, more ready to solve problems with force. To contrast, Humanity (and I hate V:tM) at least gave you the option to choose "trying for Golconda" (transcendance of the vampiric condition via 'humane' acts) as a character goal and have some kind of mechanical chance at it. I don't think there are -0- stories about PCs becoming better people, but they seem very few and far between.

QuoteThose characters had freedom to develop in the awesome way they did because they weren't saddled with "love for humanity 6d6" (or something similarly idiotic) on their character sheet.

See, the way I picture this, you might well start with "Love of humanity +4" (or whatever mechanical system you use) on the sheet; and even if it stays there, things like "tortured by the Ahran Church +5" and "Loathes vampires +3" (both acquired in play) override that, and the Ahran temple burns to the ground, worshippers trapped inside, so you can kill the secretly vampiric congregation leader, as a random example off the top of my head. You may love humanity, but those fuckers have to -pay-.


It's a difference in perspective, and one I doubt we'll ever agree on. Where you see them restricting the character's development, I see them as letting me model -all- of the character's development in terms that are clearly laid out (without resorting to levels of Ranger for the favored enemy bonuses :D ). I agree they are more likely to damage play than having purely physical or mental mechanics, but I don't think they always will. It's all in how they're used.


This is all my opinion; others may disagree. I don't claim truth, just a style my players have fun with.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThat thing where you stick something like (Christmas Ape's example) "Can't Abide Weakness In Himself" on the character sheet and play that.. well.. first of all, it locks you into a very static character. You've essentially played the character out before you even get a chance to use him in a game. Now he's either the character that can't abide weakness in himself, or he's the character that was forced at some point by some GM-hammering to deal with abiding weakness in himself.

Of course he has to deal with that at some point, successfully or not, as internal conflicts are perfect fuel for roleplaying and one of the reasons why personality mechanics exist in the first place. That conflict in turn may lead to the character developing in other directions when he either learns to accept moments of weakness or begin to deny them more resolutely than ever before. Having the trait defined like that doesn't prevent the character from changing in the future. Besides, unless you start out by playing someone who is a completely blank slate in terms of personality, he must have at least something that could be written into that same space on the sheet; otherwise, well, he's not really a character, just a bunch of numbers.

Well in both of these cases- the characters became a bit tougher and darker because they were adventurers. They saw danger every day, and it hardened them in certain ways.

But what I think is more important and illustrative is that Archie the salesman became sort of this determined samurai character over time. His alignment never changed from the original lawful neutral

My character the professor (by contrast) became a character that ended up manipulating the foolish savages and using their superstitions against them, despite the fact that he started out by trying to help the savage tribes. His alignment never changed either.

So in the sense that alignment determined things like "what monsters I can summon" or whatever, alignment suceeded here. But in the sense that alignment told us how to roleplay our characters, it certainly didn't. And I'm extremely thankful for that.

Quote from: GrimGentOf course he has to deal with that at some point, successfully or not, as internal conflicts are perfect fuel for roleplaying and one of the reasons why personality mechanics exist in the first place.

Well, yes. Thats why they are there: to help people with roleplaying. I disagree on the idea that people really need this help, though. Experts don't need any help, and amateurs who might benefit from it are usually better served by coming to it on their own. I hate the idea of forcing anyone to roleplay or 'judging' roleplay.

Quote from: grimgentThat conflict in turn may lead to the character developing in other directions when he either learns to accept moments of weakness or begin to deny them more resolutely than ever before. Having the trait defined like that doesn't prevent the character from changing in the future. Besides, unless you start out by playing someone who is a completely blank slate in terms of personality, he must have at least something that could be written into that same space on the sheet; otherwise, well, he's not really a character, just a bunch of numbers.

This I disagree with: yes you need sort of a baseline personality to begin with, but writing it down is the wrong thing to do. I don't even advise players in my campaign to write background stories for their characters until they play for a while (usually the 3rd or 4th session).

I remember a superhero campaign we had in college where one player came in saying "This character is totally going to be about my dark side.. " and 4 sessions later he had turned into the team's fun jokester character, not dark at all. I don't want to miss out on that stuff (or have the player miss out on that stuff) by strapping something to their character sheet at conception.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThis I disagree with: yes you need sort of a baseline personality to begin with, but writing it down is the wrong thing to do. I don't even advise players in my campaign to write background stories for their characters until they play for a while (usually the 3rd or 4th session).

That's pretty much the opposite of what I (or the people I've played with) have always done. For me, it all starts with a fairly detailed concept and at least a few key details of personal background, none of which will be rewritten later even though the character may very well change drastically as a person. The stats follow afterwards.

(Also, note that in games like Nobilis the characters can in a very literal sense gain power by remaining true to themselves or be weakened by doubt: it's a central game mechanic. This simply isn't possible unless their priorities are kept straight from the beginning.)

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut personality mechanics are so fucking awful...

A brilliant analysis, Maw. And I agree with you completely.  You put it better than I could have.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGent(Also, note that in games like Nobilis the characters can in a very literal sense gain power by remaining true to themselves or be weakened by doubt: it's a central game mechanic. This simply isn't possible unless their priorities are kept straight from the beginning.)

Yet another reason to add to my long list of "Why Nobilis Sucks ASS". Thanks, Grim.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYet another reason to add to my long list of "Why Nobilis Sucks ASS". Thanks, Grim.

Eh, you're welcome, I'm sure. But it does make sense in the setting: even if a character is absolutely invulnerable to any earthly weapons but has a personal Code against tolerating weakness, maneuvering him into acknowledging whatever weaknesses he tries to deny might do more damage than a nuclear bomb. On the other hand, direct violence generally isn't the most useful solution.

(You could also implement the same problem as a Handicap, of course, but that wouldn't render him anywhere near as vulnerable.)

Quote from: Andy KAnd I'm curious as to which ones.  Are we talking "D&D Alignment" here?

No.

I'm not, at least, and I'm pretty confiden Maddman wasn't either.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadNo.

I'm not, at least, and I'm pretty confiden Maddman wasn't either.

No, I'm not.  Alignment is more 'football teams' than moral system.  I'm talking about things like Unisystem's Drawbacks, Qualites, and Drama Points, Exalteds Motivation, Intimicies, and Virtues, and Unknown Armies Passions and Madness Meter.

Alignments came in play because I mentioned that even old-school D&D had some kind of background mechanics. Certainly of another kind, 'though it was pretty important for certain classes. And a lot of DM's rewarded role-playing close to your alignment, so it was some kind of retroactive positive enforcement (as opposed to the instant boosts more modern games implement).

I'm generally not a big fan of them, especially when you get some character creation bonus from them. If you want to play someone who's overconfident and curious, please do so (as if there's another type), but don't expect me to subsidize your insane strength from that...
('Though I get some kind of minor sadistic kick from certain rolls on the Hackmaster Flaws tables...)

I found the Pendragon implementation quite interesting, and amongst recent games Artesia is doing quite well. Might actually play the latter one pretty soon.

Quote from: SosthenesI'm generally not a big fan of them, especially when you get some character creation bonus from them. If you want to play someone who's overconfident and curious, please do so (as if there's another type), but don't expect me to subsidize your insane strength from that...
('Though I get some kind of minor sadistic kick from certain rolls on the Hackmaster Flaws tables...)

I'll agree with that.  With drawbacks I much prefer systems that give some kind of reward when they come up in play - Buffy gives Drama points (though it also gives points at chargen) and World of Darkness gives bonus XP.  

Probably the worst implementation was the 2e S|<1llZ n P0\/\/3rZ book, which perfected the 'reward players for what they were going to do anyway'.  Couldn't count the PCs that were Bad Tempered and Greedy.  Oh noes, what a drawback, a D&D character that had an attitude and liked treasure!  That might lead to killing of things and taking of stuff!  Unless you were a paladin, in which case you took Zealot and Honorable.  :p

Quote from: MaddmanI'll agree with that.  With drawbacks I much prefer systems that give some kind of reward when they come up in play - Buffy gives Drama points (though it also gives points at chargen) and World of Darkness gives bonus XP.

(http://users.gmpexpress.net/adkohler/agree.gif)

The one true disadvantage method.

QuoteProbably the worst implementation was the 2e S|<1llZ n P0\/\/3rZ book, which perfected the 'reward players for what they were going to do anyway'.

If you think about it, it's really not that different than the GURPS and HERO style disads that have been around for years. In fact, it's a step better, because what you could spend those points on were limit. But in my play experience, it still proved a problem. (I guess I tolerated it in HERO because the kind of odd over-the-top characters it tended to produce were sort of in-genre.)

I consider these things a problem for the same reason Barbarians and Cavaliers are: it rewards characters for a bad (and often disruptive to the game) attitude.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThe one true disadvantage method.

Yup: that way the disadvantages actually have to be disadvantageous during play. The Handicaps in Nobilis are another example of this, by the way.

Quote from: GrimGentYup: that way the disadvantages actually have to be disadvantageous during play. The Handicaps in Nobilis are another example of this, by the way.

And, of course, I can't let the moment slip by without mentioning that subplots in Spycraft also reflect this method.