Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI think most dislike of the AoO rules are not based upon a perception of poor design but rather upon the general principle that they're un-necessary and a stupid idea regardless of how well implemented the rules are.

Quite.  The other night when someone ran away I distinctly recall saying "you get a chance to stab at him as he retreats" which is essentially an AoO.  However, I said it because it seemed obvious, I don't think having a rule for it would have improved my life any.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI'd probably go for something urban and Lankhmary like the players being hired to set up a watch in one of the more violent and lawless sections of the city with a fair bit of fighting and a fair bit of intrigue and alliance building too.

Very cool, though I suspect BRP would do it better.

My fear is that in the past when I've tried to run stuff like DnD I've found some otherwise good players suddenly undergo some reversion to their 14 year old selves and insist on treating it like a fucking dungeon crawl.

It's like the words DnD trigger some inner munchkin and suddenly a player who would normally negotiate is hacking down town officials and any NPC who backchats them regardless of sense or context.

I suspect it has something to do with their preconceptions about DnD, but it is annoying when it happens and puts me off running it myself.  That said, it's been many years since I played a Magic User.

Cyclopedia has a good skills system by the way, much better than 3.5's in my view and much simpler too.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI think most dislike of the AoO rules are not based upon a perception of poor design but rather upon the general principle that they're un-necessary and a stupid idea regardless of how well implemented the rules are.

I don't share this perception.

Most vocal ranting (at least by people who play the game) I hear is:
1) Remembering all the unique conditions (I personally have no difficulty with it; most of the conditions make sense to me.)
2) The premise not always being met by the rules. For example, the premise is that "if you are distracted, there is an opening that a melee opponent can exploit." I hear great gnashing of teeth over the fact that you might suffer an AoO from being distracted while casting a spell, but you don't get an AoO on someone unconscious.

Quote from: BalbinusHowever, I said it because it seemed obvious, I don't think having a rule for it would have improved my life any.

Balbinus, you wouldn't know what rules would add to your life if they hit you over the head with a wet platypus.

Quote from: gleichmanBalbinus, you wouldn't know what rules would add to your life if they hit you over the head with a wet platypus.

Hah, now you sound like my parents used to...

Quote from: BalbinusHah, now you sound like my parents used to...

I never told you this before, but I am your father.

If you only knew the power of the Rules Side...

Quote from: BalbinusVery cool, though I suspect BRP would do it better.

  This is basically my response to everything game related.  As far as my tastes are concerned, BRP is the perfect game.

  I don't know about D&D bringing out munchkinism, having not touched the system since I was a teenager but I think it's as much about the PCs relative power as anything else.  In D&D most people are level 0 so all you need is a few levels under your belt and you feel invincible, capable of throwing your weight around all over the place and the use of brute force to solve all problems suddenly becomes very attractive.

  In most BRP games though, even if you're a seasoned adventurer you can still be seriously fucked up by a peasant with an axe so brute force seems less attractive.

  I remember playing in a BRP fantasy game where we all had a single magical power.  One bloke had the power to liquify bowells and thereby give anyone that looked at us funny the runs.  The Gm was somewhat liberal when it came to interpreting the power and coupled with us all having decent combat skills this meant that it wasn't long before all subtlety and plotting went straight out the window because if anyone called the guards we could make them all shit themselves and then run off.

  That was a weird game.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI don't know about D&D bringing out munchkinism, having not touched the system since I was a teenager but I think it's as much about the PCs relative power as anything else.  In D&D most people are level 0 so all you need is a few levels under your belt and you feel invincible, capable of throwing your weight around all over the place and the use of brute force to solve all problems suddenly becomes very attractive.

It may just have been those players, it just scarred me slightly.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThat was a weird game.

Indeed.  What an odd power by the way, still, at least it wasn't a supers game.

Quote from: BalbinusCyclopedia has a good skills system by the way, much better than 3.5's in my view and much simpler too.

This is something I'd like to hear more about.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThis is something I'd like to hear more about.

You get I think four skills at character generation, each skill is based on a stat and is equal to that stat.  You roll your skill or less on d20 to succeed.

Very easy stuff.  There is also a wide range of skills, but not so wide to invalidate concepts.  I created an example fighter with skills in siegecraft and related stuff very easily, he was competent at that stuff and it made a more interesting character.

The only oddity is that as they are based on stats, a first level character is probably much better at his skills than his class stuff, but you pay a price for simplicity and that's fine for me.

There's probably a bit more to it, but that's how I broadly remember it.

Thanks, I like that. Not sure how I feel about the decoupling of skills from advancement but I suppose one could analyze it as meaning that the skills are peripheral to the core of the game--a means of framing scenes rather than a way of resolving them. E.g. siegecraft isn't going to win a battle for you but it will put you in a position to win it by allowing you to build a mine and fight your skirmish at the breach instead of at the wall.

I may be mistaken but I think that early Talislanta has something similar but with a simple method by which new skills can be learned and advance along with the core "class" advancement.

Quote from: BalbinusYou get I think four skills at character generation, each skill is based on a stat and is equal to that stat.  You roll your skill or less on d20 to succeed.

Very easy stuff.  There is also a wide range of skills, but not so wide to invalidate concepts.  I created an example fighter with skills in siegecraft and related stuff very easily, he was competent at that stuff and it made a more interesting character.

The only oddity is that as they are based on stats, a first level character is probably much better at his skills than his class stuff, but you pay a price for simplicity and that's fine for me.

There's probably a bit more to it, but that's how I broadly remember it.

To be more precise, the PC gets 4 + Int bonus skill 'slots' (so a PC with 18 Int would get 7).

You can spend additional skill 'slots' to improve a single skill, instead of taking a new one (e.g. if you spent two skill slots on 'acrobatics', and your Dex was 16, your skill in acrobatics would in fact be 17).  As should be obvious, this is really not worth it.

PCs also gain 1 additional skill slot every four levels afterwards (i.e. at level 5, 9, 13, 17, etc.).

Quote from: AkrasiaYou can spend additional skill 'slots' to improve a single skill, instead of taking a new one (e.g. if you spent two skill slots on 'acrobatics', and your Dex was 16, your skill in acrobatics would in fact be 17).  As should be obvious, this is really not worth it.

It's similar to 2E AD&D's skill system.  We used to houserule that additional slots gave you +4 and still almost no one spent additional slots.