Quote from: Sommerjon;580039And they have input on assumed risk through an "oldskool sandbox"?
 How?  
Isn't their assumed risk purely dependent upon; quality of description from the DM, encounter chart, and how metagamey they feel like being?

Hardly.

Well lets see, according to the rumors we picked up around town there appears to be several things worth checking out:

- the old abandoned mine to the West. Word is that the goblins that have been stealing goats & sheep are hold up there.

- The ruined keep the South. People say that those who get too close are never seen again. JoBob the grain merchant says that he saw a bunch of ogres near that place once. He ran for his life!

- The mountains to the North are said to be home to a tribe of hill giants. The folks up that way give them a lot of livestock to get left alone.


These options represent different levels of difficulty. Chances are the rewards for the more dangerous areas are greater, as is the risk of getting splattered. Thus the players can decide what level of risk they would like to assume.

Quote from: estar;580042Then all roleplaying system for progression are mechanical. I see D&D levels little different then how GURPS handles follow on options for templates. Lenses that cost X Points that modified the base template (also in points) in some way.

Level is abstract and there are a large jump in power level but doesn't make it any less organic than any other arbitrary method of measuring character progression.

It boils down to a preference issues. Whether you like the detail that point based (or percentile based) systems give you. Or you like something simpler and more abstract.

D&D levels are completely different then most skill based games.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580044Hardly.

Well lets see, according to the rumors we picked up around town there appears to be several things worth checking out:

- the old abandoned mine to the West. Word is that the goblins that have been stealing goats & sheep are hold up there.

- The ruined keep the South. People say that those who get too close are never seen again. JoBob the grain merchant says that he saw a bunch of ogres near that place once. He ran for his life!

- The mountains to the North are said to be home to a tribe of hill giants. The folks up that way give them a lot of livestock to get left alone.


These options represent different levels of difficulty. Chances are the rewards for the more dangerous areas are greater, as is the risk of getting splattered. Thus the players can decide what level of risk they would like to assume.

Like I said metagamey.

I fail to see the difference between
"Planning out the number of levels of things the PCs will encounter in a given time frame is pure bullshit. Doing this tells them that their choices on where to go and what to do are meaningless because they will be facing N encounters of W-Z difficulty per day."

and

"the mine has goblins, the keep has ogres, the mountains have hill giants"

So if the players start with the goblins then go to the ogres and finish with the hill giants, how the frelling frell is that not planning out the number of levels of things the PCs will encounter in a given time frame ?

Quote from: Sommerjon;580049Like I said metagamey.

I fail to see the difference between
"Planning out the number of levels of things the PCs will encounter in a given time frame is pure bullshit. Doing this tells them that their choices on where to go and what to do are meaningless because they will be facing N encounters of W-Z difficulty per day."

and

"the mine has goblins, the keep has ogres, the mountains have hill giants"

So if the players start with the goblins then go to the ogres and finish with the hill giants, how the frelling frell is that not planning out the number of levels of things the PCs will encounter in a given time frame ?

Because you are populating a setting with inhabitants, not choosing what the PCs will do.

What if the players have brass balls and decide to check out the ogres first? They might pull off a clever plan and get away with the ogre's treasure.

Quote from: Sommerjon;580018The absurdity is your insistance that D&D sandbox isn't mechanical but organic.

D&D is a level based game.  Level is pure mechanical.

I'd have used the word "arbitrary" rather than "mechanical".

As jibba said, neither approach (sandbox vs. encounter) is more arbitrary than the other.  They're just arbitrary in different ways, and this whole dustup is just arguing how many elves can dance on the head of a pin.

Quote from: Dimitrios;579999I believe a part of the complaint is players who feel the the DM is somehow "cheating" if he/she doesn't slavishly adhere to those suggestions.

That, I agree is of concern. The more transparent you make the system, the more player expectations are likely to be set.

However, this is true of all RPGs to some extent. As jibba has pointed out, there is transparency even in the mechanics of AD&D to some extent in how adventures are designed and these were setting expectations with players back then.

As such, the issue IMO is better dealt with not by criticising the transparency of the mechanics but instead managing player expectations. If you are about to run 4e (or any form of D&D) just make it clear to your players that these kinds of mechanical suggestions are not determinative of what they encounter in play. The mechanics themselves don't require the suggestions to be adhered to, so players shouldn't either.

People have been doing this for decades, why change now.

Quote from: Dimitrios;579999I believe a part of the complaint is players who feel the the DM is somehow "cheating" if he/she doesn't slavishly adhere to those suggestions.

I would never use a 'number of encounters a day' system. It would negatively impact a campaign. Promotes metagaming, waters down challenge, waste of the dms time.  

What is the supposed benefit?

Quote from: Bill;580129I would never use a 'number of encounters a day' system. It would negatively impact a campaign. Promotes metagaming, waters down challenge, waste of the dms time.  

What is the supposed benefit?

If you have an RPG where PC resources are measured "by day", such as spells per day, healing HP at a daily rate etc, then encounters per day is benchmark derived logically from the system that may help a GM measure what the PC resources can be expected to handle.

Quote from: Skywalker;580128That, I agree is of concern. The more transparent you make the system, the more player expectations are likely to be set.

However, this is true of all RPGs to some extent. As jibba has pointed out, there is transparency even in the mechanics of AD&D to some extent in how adventures are designed and these were setting expectations with players back then.

As such, the issue IMO is better dealt with not by criticising the transparency of the mechanics but instead managing player expectations. If you are about to run 4e (or any form of D&D) just make it clear to your players that these kinds of mechanical suggestions are not determinative of what they encounter in play. The mechanics themselves don't require the suggestions to be adhered to, so players shouldn't either.

People have been doing this for decades, why change now.

I basically agree. I think I've said before (maybe not here at theRPGsite) that my current distaste towards 4e has less to do with the game itself than the player culture that seems to have grown up around it.

Maybe it was already getting going in the late 3.5 era, but the cult of RAW - including the things that are supposedly just "suggestions" - is something I really notice lately. Much more than with older editions.

Quote from: Dimitrios;580134I think I've said before (maybe not here at theRPGsite) that my current distaste towards 4e has less to do with the game itself than the player culture that seems to have grown up around it.

Maybe it was already getting going in the late 3.5 era, but the cult of RAW - including the things that are supposedly just "suggestions" - is something I really notice lately. Much more than with older editions.

That is similar to my experiences too. Strangely, whenever I have run 4e for new players with this mindset, they have loved going off the map when its done for good effect It took a little effort to manage their expectations as players.

FWIW I think the negative reactions of the cult of RAW we see are generally limited to a vocal minority on the internet.

Quote from: Sommerjon;580049D&D levels are completely different then most skill based games.

While the punditry is awe inspiring the utter lack of details makes the above statement as well supported as a wet noodle.

Pure and simple, D&D Levels wrap up a set of abilities and skills.  Character take big leaps in capabilities when they level. This is little different than when a GURPS Game or Hero System Game where the referee awards 50 points at one time. You may not prefer it this type of system, but class & level doesn't restrict the referee in the range of worlds he can create or run.

And if the setup of classes and what they gain at each level match the setting the referee is using, the campaign is much more approachable to novices and straightforward to learn than skill based games. Something I have direct experience with when running the Majestic Wilderlands using Swords & Wizardry and when I run it using GURPS.

What you been arguing boils down to "I don't prefer Class & Level". Fine you don't like it, so move on. Unless you don't understand how to use a class & level system for a setting. In which I would be happy to answer your questions as I have some small measure of experience in this area.

Quote from: estar;580160While the punditry is awe inspiring the utter lack of details makes the above statement as well supported as a wet noodle.

Pure and simple, D&D Levels wrap up a set of abilities and skills.  Character take big leaps in capabilities when they level. This is little different than when a GURPS Game or Hero System Game where the referee awards 50 points at one time. You may not prefer it this type of system, but class & level doesn't restrict the referee in the range of worlds he can create or run.

And if the setup of classes and what they gain at each level match the setting the referee is using, the campaign is much more approachable to novices and straightforward to learn than skill based games. Something I have direct experience with when running the Majestic Wilderlands using Swords & Wizardry and when I run it using GURPS.

What you been arguing boils down to "I don't prefer Class & Level". Fine you don't like it, so move on. Unless you don't understand how to use a class & level system for a setting. In which I would be happy to answer your questions as I have some small measure of experience in this area.

Dude, You know I love you and your stuff.

But all rules restrict the types of setting that fit them properly and work properly.    I dont think Majestic Wilderlands is a bad fit at all, but Class and level do, in my estimation, limit the amount of setting that really fit it that well more than a lot of other rules.  

ANd I do know how to use said systems.

Quote from: LordVreeg;580165Dude, You know I love you and your stuff.

But all rules restrict the types of setting that fit them properly and work properly.    I dont think Majestic Wilderlands is a bad fit at all, but Class and level do, in my estimation, limit the amount of setting that really fit it that well more than a lot of other rules.  

ANd I do know how to use said systems.

and I don't disagree.

That why you need the right class and level setup, which is why I developed a S&W supplement and did not use the raw rules. The classes in my supplement are reworked from the GURPS templates I used for twenty years.

Your observation about settings and rules is true and something i personally know from all the years solely running under GURPS but the assumption is that you use the unchanged rules. A system can be modified to conform to your campaign's assumptions.

Seriously what is the difference between a fighter class, a fighter template, fighter occupation, and a fighter profession? (D&D, GURPS, Harnmaster, Runequest)

Quote from: estar;580176Seriously what is the difference between a fighter class, a fighter template, fighter occupation, and a fighter profession? (D&D, GURPS, Harnmaster, Runequest)

I think that the latter three all only have an effect during character creation.  That is, you can hand me a character sheet with all the stats but no information about what template was used, and that doesn't influence game play at all.  In contrast, a D&D class influences how advancement is going to work.  

I talk about the contrast in an old article here:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/classes.html

Quote from: jhkim;580182I think that the latter three all only have an effect during character creation.  That is, you can hand me a character sheet with all the stats but no information about what template was used, and that doesn't influence game play at all.  In contrast, a D&D class influences how advancement is going to work.  

I talk about the contrast in an old article here:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/classes.html

I agree in D&D the player is limited to what subsequent levels grant.

But suppose I made a GURPS or Runequest Class & Level supplement? Character start out with some base background, and every level get x skills increases, x advantages, and x traits. And that was the only option for the campaign.

Does the nature of the setting magically change? The magic system, creatures, and combat are still as detailed as ever. I say no. The setting doesn't change.

That class and level is used not what important to the setting. What important is the details. It is the details of D&D 4e classes that makes them unsuitable for the Majestic Wilderlands. It is the details of the S&W classes that makes them suitable for the Majestic Wilderlands. Class and level has nothing to do with it.

Where it's important is in preference. A lot of players like coming over from my S&W campaigns to my GURPS campaigns because suddenly they have a wealth of choices to make the exact character they want. It still the same type of game regardless whereever its GURPS or Swords & Wizardry.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580055Because you are populating a setting with inhabitants, not choosing what the PCs will do.

What if the players have brass balls and decide to check out the ogres first? They might pull off a clever plan and get away with the ogre's treasure.

I've seen that as a DM (and done it as a player) numerous times. That's one of the joys of the sandbox.