RPGs analog style - planning the RacketRPG group

[Ack]

Issues included the hard cap on levels and limited path choices for your character's "end goal," the special ability system that was put into place, rigid limitations on spell interpretations. Basically the issue with the system was that it felt too locked in. I no longer felt I could be creative the way I had always been with previous editions(and the way I continued to be when I switched over to Pathfinder).

Put it this way, I had a friend who played a character in a regularly occurring game for a decade, so long he hit level 65. That character was so powerful, he could kill certain gods. When 4th came out, he realized there was no way to translate such a character. And that was how it was. We went from pulling off ridiculous crap by playing fast and loose to some weird kind of reincarnation framework that just felt limiting. My fighters were no longer relying on their wits and their swordarms, they were using special moves that just felt...bland.

[MrPopo]

From what I've heard 4e was closer to wargaming rules that would also translate well to computer representation. So a lot more is spelled out and explicit.

[Ack]

World of Warcraft is what I heard it compared to the most.

[Erik_Twice]

World of Warcraft is what I heard it compared to the most.

That said, most people who made that comparison were the usual "More hardcore than thou" types who think that videogames are lesser than RPGs and who are still upset by the release of "fake" roleplaying games like Vampire: The Masquerade more than twenty years ago

[marurun]

D&D 4th edition is just fine as a battle game AND an RPG. But it's not very much like D&D. It's such a dramatic shift in tone for D&D that it's kind alike WoTC made a totally different game and slapped the D&D moniker on it.

In truth, I've fallen out of love with the D&D 3.x line as well. I think D20 is a fine system and has lots of great qualities... for other games. But as D&D, I don't like it. If I want to play D&D, I'm going to have to stick to 2nd ed or older.

Basically, I've found the more rules an RPG has, the more constrained the players will be. Yes, "do whatever you want and work out with the GM how it will play out mechanically" has always been technically written out in the rules of every D&D variation, but the more and more specific rules you have, the harder it gets to start imagining actions outside of those rules. The do whatever you want and just sort out the mechanics approach works better when there are fewer nit-picky rules to keep track of and just a solid core mechanic. But once you start bolting on rules for every weird little situation EXCEPT the one you have in your head, it becomes MUCH easier to just skip doing that and stick to something there's a rule for. The other side of this, though, is that you have to have a certain amount of trust in your GM. If they are enablers, it's no problem. But some GMs have a habit of shutting down lots of creative ideas because it's THEIR game and you play by THEIR rules.

[marurun]

Oh, should also note that I picked up a copy of Zak S.'s A Red and Pleasant Land. This is one of the most beautiful role-playing books I have ever seen. It's right up there with Artesia: The Known World. And it's more usable than Artesia, because the layout is better and the rules are so easy to tap into. If I end up GMing something with this crew, you can bet there's gonna be some of this trippy weirdness going on.

[MrPopo]

You might want to check out Numenera, marurun. The mechanics in the game are exceedingly simple; figure out the difficulty of the task, figure out modifiers (are you skilled in climbing, do you have pole for balancing, etc), apply effort (spend stats for a boost), then roll to beat the final number. The setting has the flexibility to allow basically anything; mix technology with centaurs if you want. Even the combat mechanics are simple; all rolls are done by the players. On attack you roll to beat "how hard is it to hit them" and on defense you roll to beat "how hard is it to dodge their attack".

[marurun]

Does Numenera use skills?

Tangent on skill systems...

It's hard to make a skill system that is good. I think D&D 3.x and Pathfinder fail at skills (by my bizarre standards), because all their skill lists are so selective. Skill points are so carefully rationed out, and challenge levels rachet up so continually, and the skill lists are so carefully curated to include only those things which have direct mechanical impact with the rules as written. I think for skill systems to work they must instead be relatively comprehensive and include skills which may not have as direct or obvious a mechanical impact in just situations like "combat" or "sneaking" or the like. GURPS is a great example of a system that has skills that work because of their comprehensiveness and generality of the system. Because 3.x and similar are all more constructed into different systems or contexts, I think their skill mechanic creates as many problems as it fixes.

I really do think I prefer old-school D&D where most "skill" style rolls were adjudicated with a roll on a d6 or a d20 with a nod to your class, race, and background, and without having to wonder how you know if you're a good cook because there's no "cooking" skill, so would you just use alchemy instead?

This is all editorializing on my part, however, so feel free to disagree.

[MrPopo]

There are skills, but not a formal skill list. A skill will reduce the difficulty of a task by one step. You can expend effort to reduce the difficulty of a task by one or more steps, and the party can work together to reduce difficulty by one or more steps. Skills end up being a way to add backstory to your character that translates to some in-game advantages, but nothing you can really metagame to min max things.

[marurun]

Cool. I could probably dig that OK.