The D20 system is NOT your father's D&D

[Neo]

Probably throwing myself in at the deep end here, but what the hey

My take on experience and experience awards is thus.

Experience is just that what we experience, everyone every day is experiencing something new,be it good or bad, success or failure.. whatever the case each day brings experiences of something new and thus add to the overall experience of the individual, it's not something we switch on or off it's constant.. Experience Awards do not represent this form of experience.

They instead represent the "Extra" knowledge gained, or lessons learned from things which occur beyond the mundane, things of significance, importance or danger.. all of these kinds of "experience" lend important knowledge that is vastly more beneficial and advantageous to us than the mundane experience of every day life, and experience awards represent just that IMO.

------------------
Neo

"Et semel emissum volat ireevocabile verbum".

 

[Antares Administration]

Neo, I think you've got the right idea. XPs should be awarded to characters that reach for "stretch" goals, i.e. the non-mundane. An earlier posting pointed out that a character "learns" from mistakes as well as successes. I agree, and in past have awarded points to characters that have tried something new and failed.

However, there is another reason for rewarding XPs - good play. Many games have referred to the use of "XPs" as a reward to a player for his/her play - creativity, staying in character/alignment, teamwork or just plain chutzpah. Some games go so far as to formalize a GM's "discretionary" ability to reward game play. Certainly, there can be the quantative "x number of experience points for an x hit die monster", but there should also be a qualitative factor as well.

I started playing DND and Traveller at about the same time in the late 70s. I've found that each GM and each campaign have their own particular "formulae" for XPs that loosely interprets "the rules book". However, points awarded for good play have always been a part of my favourite and most memorable games.

AA

 

[lucasdigital]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Neo:
<SNIP>constant.. Experience Awards do not represent this form of experience.

They instead represent the "Extra" knowledge gained, or lessons learned from things which occur beyond the mundane,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly...Small world!

I have to agree with you. I see some rather heated debate that's getting needlessly flamey.

Competing descriptions on the real mechanisms behind the development of people's knowledge and skilling are interesting but nothing to do with the price of fish...

What 'feels right', what enhances player enjoyment, what can be administered smoothly and simply. These are the most significant criteria for discussion.

How anyone who stands behind the D20 can make arguments about how stuff works in 'real life' needs to take a step back for a while.

I find the foundation of the system hangs onto too many archaic table based abstractions (character levels etc)

I realise that many people play and enjoy using the D20 system, good for them!

My personal favourite flavour of RPG is Playable Realism. Something that is quick and easy (doesn't hinder drama or narrative) but gives me a sense of reality, to assist my rather straightlaced sensibilities.

------------------
Mark Lucas
Lucas-digital.com


[This message has been edited by lucasdigital (edited 30 May 2001).]

 

[The Shoveller]

Oh Lord, here come the White Wolf people...

RPGs are not just supposed to be interactive fiction. RPG rules systems are supposed to be a reasonable SIMULATION of a topic. WW products and other minimalist systems that claim to be RPGs are HORRIBLE SIMULATIONS! You can't make a claim to be a good RPG if the rules don't allow as good a reproduction of a reality as possible. To play a role well, that "reality" must be simulated effectively. Minimalist systems don't do that whatsoever.

[This message has been edited by The Shoveller (edited 30 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by The Shoveller (edited 30 May 2001).]

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by lucasdigital:
Firstly...Small world!

Very and i'm a Mark too..



------------------
Neo

"Et semel emissum volat ireevocabile verbum".

 

[lucasdigital]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
Oh Lord, here come the White Wolf people...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who you callin a White Wolf person!???

Read my post again ....Playable *REALISM*, I'm talking balance here.

RPG's do not simulate anything in the true meaning of simulation. What they do is handle the mechanics of predicting the outcome of events and actions using simple probability mechanics. NASA simulates the effects of a crashing aircraft, what we do is closer to what the insurance companies do, which is to use probability mechanics and some simple ground rules to help make risk judgements.

I played and ENJOYED playing the TNE Starship combat game BRILLIANT LANCES, probably the most realistic and skillfully simulated of such games..

If only it didn't take about an hour per combat round even for a relatively small encounter.

I was an avid fan of TNE because the game mechanics particularly in combat produced a much more satisfying simulation of real firearm combat. The system having evolved from Twilight 2000 which dealt with combat far more realistically.

Most of the people around here seem to advocate CT and MT above TNE precisely because they enjoyed the greater simplicity of these systems, not their superiority in simulating reality. Neither CT, MT or the D20 system simulate character injury as realistically as 2300AD did, does this make 2300AD the best system to incorporate in future traveller products?



[This message has been edited by lucasdigital (edited 31 May 2001).]

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
Oh Lord, here come the White Wolf people...

RPGs are not just supposed to be interactive fiction. RPG rules systems are supposed to be a reasonable SIMULATION of a topic.
[snip]
To play a role well, that "reality" must be simulated effectively. Minimalist systems don't do that whatsoever.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, Even as a kid (aged 10 when I started) it was as much about "Life, Love, and Likeability" as it was "getting the kills" or "simulating anything". The group I played with as a kid explored aspects of our personalities using D&D (not AD&D, which had JUST come out.

In High School, I found Traveller. We told good stories. To hell with the rules, the setting, the mechanics, so long as the story was good. This philosophy has meant that, oover the last 22 years, I've never had a problem keeping decent players... I craft a good interactive fiction for them, with people to interact with (and some to interact violently with). We, the players, knew only CG and "Roll 2d and add skill". Everything was story. See my topic in the Characters forum for an example of the stories and their poigniancy and memorability. Everone in that group remembers a breathless week of lunches in the Social Studies Center waiting to find out what "I" ate...

I'm not a big fan of WWG for the nature of the settings; I LIKE the engine itself; it makes decent characters quickly, is playable, and doesn't block telling a good story. It simulates just enough that common sense allows you to ignore it much of the non-combat time. In one Traveller campaign, which I ref'd, in six months of play (Weekly 6-8 hour sessions), there was only one combat scene. And we coverd 3 years character time. Rules spoke far less than setting for that game. And movers and shakers. The one combat was a Duke NPC defending his friend from a percieved threat; said threat was not truly even aa threat.

I tell stories, and use rules to make things interesting and fair. I don't "Simulate" anything in an RPG, I have tools to use, change, add, or delete as the STORY needs. Especially in Traveller.

And yeah, I've run some memorable combats (Can we say Combat Frisbee from inside a Jewelery store? A PC took on a robber, armed only with a frisbee, a wallet, and a handcomp. Armor of said PC was a lycra bikini, an imperial warrant {limited authority}, and sandals.)

Another memorable combat, the one which turned the group away from TNE, involved a Vargr PC taking 5 FGMP's in the shorts, literally, while he kicked to death the Battledress trooper shooting him. The PC had tried to escape through a ventilation shaft. The PC was fine after a few weeks to recover. I was using d10's for damage, and critical hits do double, and more to make it work.

But, in all, the rules worked. They didn't simulate reality, any more than my life-long-love, self-learned-from-the-books, MT. I'd been running CT with Bks 1-7, Striker, AHL, Mayday and Snapshot all melded. MT gave me a melding of them, that I was able to run adequately within 2 days of purchase. At least my players were happy with the stories told. They still proudly brag about their character's exploits... 14 years later.

I've run games with everything from Rolemaster to Tunnels and Trolls. My players generally don't care what rules I use, so long as they don't interfere with the story, and are easy to play.

I've run D&D 3E. It's quick, easy, nigh on intuitive, well written, visually gorgeous, and realatively cinematic. I ran some gritty sessions with it; no problem. The d20 engine doesn't interfere with story tone much. In fact, the DMG gives ideas how to shape the rules to fit story tone.

T20 may just draw enough players to traveller for me to convert them to the "One True Advanced CT" (that's IMHO, BTW) known as MegaTraveller. It Will get me telling stories in the late 3i again. I will buy the base T20 book, no matter how bad, just for the info on the Domain of Antares. If the setting is good, I'll even buy the supplements.

YMMV.


------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[hunter]

Actually we are working in Domain of Gateway not Antares. Thats the next Domain over (well not literally...)

Hunter

 

[Antares Administration]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I tell stories, and use rules to make things interesting and fair. I don't "Simulate" anything in an RPG, I have tools to use, change, add, or delete as the STORY needs. Especially in Traveller....

They still proudly brag about their character's exploits... 14 years later.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aramis, that is sheer poetry.

That's what makes a game memorable and popular, regardless of the system or the genre. It's the story! If the story is good, then the game becomes memorable, is spoken of well, and becomes more popular.

Three things go into a good RPG game story: the GM, the players, and the system.

However, in writing T20, you have no control over how well your GM can spin a plot or how well the players stay in character. What you do have control over is the system. Regardless of whether Traveller is hard SF or space opera (or both), the tool needs to be conducive to the needs of the GM and players.

We've probably all played games where the players disagreed with the "physics" of the game - like the cost of jumping freight on another thread here. And we've all played systems that were too difficult to use (related tables in different places, convoluted mechanics). The end result is that either the GM and players have to compensate (by creating ad-hoc game aids and learning the game inside-out) or the game becomes disjointed and unbelievable. Both of these turn the majority of players off.

The best thing that T20 can do is to make it easy to spin a story. Regardless of what the players want, space opera, dark future or whatever, T20 will never increase interest in Traveller in and of itself. But if it enables the GM to spin his own good story, then its popularity will grow.

I have a teenage son who plays and now DMs D&D3e. I heard the hype before the release, but that was nothing compared to the hype after they had had a chance to play!

It's a little like saying "If you build it, they will come."

Now the difficult question is, what helps a GM and players build a story?

AA

 

[kzin]

Shoveller:


Reality contradicts your assertion that RPGs are Simulations. None of the widely sucessful RPG systems are decent simulations. At best, there are some well known but narrow market RPGs that have had _some_ good simulationist aspects (Cyberpunk's Friday Night Fire Fight rules were all based upon FBI statistical data), and a few very simulationist games that had a strong but small following and lousey playability (Leading Edge games come to mind, where you could spend hours figuring out the exact form of trauma you inflicted on that bear you just shot).

Whether you like it or not, an RPG is about story. Maybe high drama story, or maybe just adventure ... but claiming it's not all about story is like saying that action movies aren't movies just because they have thin plots. It's all about story. And since it's interactive, that makes it interactive fiction.

That doesn't mean it has the associated BS of high angsty drama that White Wolf folk would heap upon you, but story is still there. It's all about story. Whether the story is how Joe the Ruffian solved a puzzle, or just how many goblins Thrag the Barbarian squished with his trusty club; whether the story is devoid of personal devleopment, or all about the horrors of your addictions; whether the story is merely a chronicle of which tombs Lara has visited, or the diaries of Laura's life on the prarie, it's _ALL_ about story.

Whether you want to convey that story with minimalist rules vs complex rules, or abstract rules vs simulationist rules is PURELY a matter of personal taste, and further has NOTHING to do with whether or not you're creating a story. Just as it is utter BS for WW to heap upon you a particular tone of story, it's BS for you to try to heap upon us a particular taste of rules.

Your assertion is well away objective truth, and well into personal religion.

 

[lucasdigital]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kzin:
Shoveller:

Your assertion is well away objective truth, and well into personal religion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to that!

What use is a realistic game system if you don't care what outcome they produce. Don't care if the character succeeds or fails.

The argument of simulation versus story has parallels in the movies that sacrafice story for special effects.

Special effects can be really neat, can really enhance enjoyment of a movie, but in the end its all trimings wrapped around the Christmas tree of the story.



------------------
Mark Lucas
Lucas-digital.com

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Actually we are working in Domain of Gateway not Antares. Thats the next Domain over (well not literally...)

Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I've made that mistake for YEARS... (G)

As for someone else's assertion that TNE is "More Realistic" than other Traveller combat systems... If we use it as a simulation, it fails as written. 1d6-1 (the damage for many small caliber pistols) can not generate the needed 21 damage points to generate a kill on an NPC, let alone a PC with Con 7+... NPC's (AND ONLY NPC's) take double onhead hits, and the optional critical rules allow double damage again on criticals, generating a maximum of 20 points. In short, you can't kill an NPC with a .22. I had a PC survive 5 hits from an FGMP, using d10's for damage.

My preference in "Simulation" mode is still MT, where a damage 2 weapon can do from 0 to 8 points of damage, and those 8 points can kill (48 points of damage is more than Human PC's will have; normal is 21, max is 45). Likewise, MT (aside from interrupts) was faster for my games... no hit locations, only one set of hit points, and a number of other easy things. I've been known to use TNE's initiative system in MT, tho.

Assuming for the moment they do it right, the D20 system will be quick. It will be playable. But, unless they go far afield from 3E and SWd20, small arms will not be as deadly as in MT.


------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!