Once we start building custom character classes, we can switch to the ACKS Player's Companion approach of 5:

• hit dice
• fighting
• thievery
• divine
• arcane

Humans spread 4 points between these 5 categories. Nonhumans can have up to 8 build points, but each extra build point reduces the maximum level of characters by 1 (from 14, not WotC's 20+) and increases XP requirements.

IIRC Fighter is 2-2-0-0-0, Thief is 0-1-3-0-0, Cleric is 1-1-0-2-0, Mage is 0-0-0-0-4.

Quote from: Naburimannu on January 18, 2022, 03:54:41 AMNonhumans can have up to 8 build points, but each extra build point reduces the maximum level of characters by 1 (from 14, not WotC's 20+) and increases XP requirements.

This kind of stupidity is why people don't take the OSR, or many of its proponents, seriously.

Now go ahead, tell me I think my characters all have to be special snowflakes, and don't acknowledge or even contemplate why this approach is pants-on-head retarded.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on January 18, 2022, 10:06:35 AM

Quote from: Naburimannu on January 18, 2022, 03:54:41 AMNonhumans can have up to 8 build points, but each extra build point reduces the maximum level of characters by 1 (from 14, not WotC's 20+) and increases XP requirements.

This kind of stupidity is why people don't take the OSR, or many of its proponents, seriously.

Now go ahead, tell me I think my characters all have to be special snowflakes, and don't acknowledge or even contemplate why this approach is pants-on-head retarded.

Your failure to understand something doesn't mean it's stupid.

QuoteThis kind of stupidity is why people don't take the OSR, or many of its proponents, seriously.

Now go ahead, tell me I think my characters all have to be special snowflakes, and don't acknowledge or even contemplate why this approach is pants-on-head retarded.

Nah, you are just self-righteous prick

Okay, boomers.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on January 18, 2022, 11:09:14 AM
Okay, boomers.

If OD&D came bundled with anthrax, its proponents would insist a hospital visit is a key aspect of the D&D experience and your a moron if you think it's not.

On this site people have said od&d having bad mechanics was a good thing because it taught you to fix them.

That said im not into freakshit and some OSR is really good.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on January 18, 2022, 10:06:35 AM

Quote from: Naburimannu on January 18, 2022, 03:54:41 AMNonhumans can have up to 8 build points, but each extra build point reduces the maximum level of characters by 1 (from 14, not WotC's 20+) and increases XP requirements.

This kind of stupidity is why people don't take the OSR, or many of its proponents, seriously.

Now go ahead, tell me I think my characters all have to be special snowflakes, and don't acknowledge or even contemplate why this approach is pants-on-head retarded.

I agree. People don't take the OSR seriously (at least I don't anyways ).

Which part is the one you think is stupid, though? Is it the build point thing, allowing only non-humans to get extra build points, or max level reductions based on number of added build points?

My only immediate issue is the max level stuff, which I was never a fan of as a balancing factor. But personally I don't know enough to judge, cuz I'm not familiar with the system. Could work, maybe not, IDK. Depends on how it's handled, I suppose.

The moment I see "build points" to build to custom classes, though, it makes me wonder: Why not just turn everything into a Feat and build your character a la carte with Feats per Level and let feat availability be the balancing factor?

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 18, 2022, 11:40:13 AM
Which part is the one you think is stupid, though?

GnomeWorks didn't say.

There are plenty of things, good and bad, to say about OSR games. But if someone can't even come up with a single concrete criticism, it's not the start of an discussion. It's just someone with nothing to contribute being an insufferable asshole.

Quote from: Pat on January 18, 2022, 10:18:30 AMYour failure to understand something doesn't mean it's stupid.

Don't expect me to do your critical thinking for you, jerkass. I understand perfectly well what the intent was, and I can explain why it's stupid, which I will do later for the benefit of you who apparently need information spoon-fed to you.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 18, 2022, 10:58:50 AMNah, you are just self-righteous prick

That may be, but ad hom is boring. Attack the argument or STFU, because I personally don't have two shits to give about your opinion of me on a personal level.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 18, 2022, 11:40:13 AMWhich part is the one you think is stupid, though? Is it the build point thing, allowing only non-humans to get extra build points, or max level reductions based on number of added build points?

Primarily the max level reduction as the "price" for the extra build points. Anyone who has actually played D&D for any length of time knows that the vast majority of games don't see 10th level, much less anything past that. Which means that non-human characters can buy more power for literally free. Not only is this obviously bad design, but it has knock-on effects for the kinds of party racial compositions you are likely to see, as well, which may result in parties not demographically matching the fiction. I bring up that second point because I'm having issues with that in my games right now, where the last couple groups have been largely non-humans in a setting that is supposed to be human-centric.

Increased XP requirements to level are a staple of pre-WotC D&D, so I'm ambivalent. I personally don't like them conceptually, but I don't know of any solid argument against them and pondering it for a few minutes didn't yield anything obviously problematic in my mind. I think they make the game more difficult to balance in general, but "clunky" isn't synonymous with "bad."

Build-a-bear approaches to characters typically sound good, on paper it allows for more customization and such, but in general I find they're less than ideal. Can they be functional? Sure. But character class as a game structure exist the way they do for a reason: mucking with that can have awkward and wonky results.

Quote from: Pat on January 18, 2022, 12:24:29 PMGnomeWorks didn't say.

There are plenty of things, good and bad, to say about OSR games. But if someone can't even come up with a single concrete criticism, it's not the start of an discussion. It's just someone with nothing to contribute being an insufferable asshole.

Cry me a fucking river, I'm sorry you're too incompetent to recognize bad design when you see it.

Ok Gnomeworks, I dislike much os OD&D but your just a rude asshole.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on January 18, 2022, 04:47:28 PM
Primarily the max level reduction as the "price" for the extra build points. Anyone who has actually played D&D for any length of time knows that the vast majority of games don't see 10th level, much less anything past that.

That wasn't the case at Gygax's table, where characters regularly reached level limits. Or in many long running campaigns today. You're making generalizations about the entire world of roleplayers based on an extrapolation of your own very limited set of experiences, ended up drawing the same trite and predictable conclusions we've seen so many times it's become tiresome, introduced this unnovel unrevelation of yours with a bellicose fusillade of shit instead of a coherent argument, and you think it's everyone else who's stupid.

Your IQ is roughly equivalent to room temperature, isn't it? And I'm not talking Fahrenheit.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 18, 2022, 05:05:51 PMOk Gnomeworks, I dislike much os OD&D but your just a rude asshole.

Do you have anything useful to contribute?

Quote from: Pat on January 18, 2022, 05:06:57 PMThat wasn't the case at Gygax's table

I don't give a single solitary fuck about anecdotes, be they yours, mine, or Gygax's. I go by data.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on January 18, 2022, 04:47:28 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 18, 2022, 11:40:13 AMWhich part is the one you think is stupid, though? Is it the build point thing, allowing only non-humans to get extra build points, or max level reductions based on number of added build points?

Primarily the max level reduction as the "price" for the extra build points. Anyone who has actually played D&D for any length of time knows that the vast majority of games don't see 10th level, much less anything past that. Which means that non-human characters can buy more power for literally free. Not only is this obviously bad design, but it has knock-on effects for the kinds of party racial compositions you are likely to see, as well, which may result in parties not demographically matching the fiction. I bring up that second point because I'm having issues with that in my games right now, where the last couple groups have been largely non-humans in a setting that is supposed to be human-centric.

Increased XP requirements to level are a staple of pre-WotC D&D, so I'm ambivalent. I personally don't like them conceptually, but I don't know of any solid argument against them and pondering it for a few minutes didn't yield anything obviously problematic in my mind. I think they make the game more difficult to balance in general, but "clunky" isn't synonymous with "bad."

Yeah, this is pretty much my felling about all of this stuff. One additional issue with racial level caps is that they can get messy if the group actually does reach high level, then you're stuck with a lower level character for perpetuity, cuz non-humans are apparently too retarded to advance after a certain point, which doesn't make a lot of sense conceptually speaking and is just an artificial measure. Plus a lot of groups end up ignoring them anyways, or working around them with increased XP requirements for higher levels.

I prefer XP penalties as a balancing factor, but agree that they feel "cluncky". Though, I'm a strong believer in the idea that you can have (almost) any character ability you want, as long as you "pay" for it somehow in-game. Point buy tends to be better for this. You could just charge races with greater abilities an extra amount of "points" equal to whatever those extra abilities would normally cost.

An XP debt might be better for level-based games. Once you pay off your debt you may advance normally. But till then you're stuck at level 1 or whatever. The two benefits I see in XP Debt vs XP Penalty are that 1) you only pay it once, then never have to think about or keep track of it ever again, and 2) you could work out precise XP costs for different types of abilities and pay for all the extra stuff you're getting exactly what they're worth (presumably).

Quote from: GnomeWorks on January 18, 2022, 04:47:28 PMBuild-a-bear approaches to characters typically sound good, on paper it allows for more customization and such, but in general I find they're less than ideal. Can they be functional? Sure. But character class as a game structure exist the way they do for a reason: mucking with that can have awkward and wonky results.

It's a trade off kind of thing. Greater customization adds more work during character creation (and advancement as well, if progression involves some kind of point system), and doesn't always produce consistent results. But then again I always questioned how consistently powerful or useful different classes are in class & level systems. I see people complain about the 5e Ranger being too weak all the time (in other editions as well, come to think of it).

Plus I always found class systems too restrictive, so I prefer customization options and dealing with the trade offs.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 18, 2022, 05:05:51 PM
Ok Gnomeworks, I dislike much os OD&D but your just a rude asshole.

Yah, I can be an asshole as well, but I usually wait till I'm locked in an argument with someone for a few posts before my inner-asshole comes out, lol

Quote from: GnomeWorks on January 18, 2022, 06:18:12 PM
I don't give a single solitary fuck about anecdotes, be they yours, mine, or Gygax's. I go by data.

Then you're further compounding your idiocy, because you're criticizing the OSR based on self-reported data from a competitor using a different set of rules.

Not only that, your basic premise is ludicrous. Being data-driven is lovely, but even the word paucity isn't sufficient to describe the data about the RPG industry. It's a barren and trackless wasteland, because what little formal industry analysis there's been is locked up as corporate secrets, and only shared in begrudging dribs and drabs, like the two decades old survey results from WotC. Even as basic a piece of information as which games sold the most has to rely on limited slices of highly biased data, like Amazon sales ranks, DTRPG metal rankings, or the retailer reports used by ICv2.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 18, 2022, 06:34:45 PMYeah, this is pretty much my felling about all of this stuff. One additional issue with racial level caps is that they can get messy if the group actually does reach high level, then you're stuck with a lower level character for perpetuity, cuz non-humans are apparently too retarded to advance after a certain point, which doesn't make a lot of sense conceptually speaking and is just an artificial measure. Plus a lot of groups end up ignoring them anyways, or working around them with increased XP requirements for higher levels.

It is a very game-y sort of solution that doesn't care about the fiction.

QuoteAn XP debt might be better for level-based games. Once you pay off your debt you may advance normally. But till then you're stuck at level 1 or whatever. The two benefits I see in XP Debt vs XP Penalty are that 1) you only pay it once, then never have to think about or keep track of it ever again, and 2) you could work out precise XP costs for different types of abilities and pay for all the extra stuff you're getting exactly what they're worth (presumably).

That was the approach in 3e, called Level Adjustment.

It was pretty universally panned, on top of it not really working out all that well.

QuoteIt's a trade off kind of thing. Greater customization adds more work during character creation (and advancement as well, if progression involves some kind of point system), and doesn't always produce consistent results. But then again I always questioned how consistently powerful or useful different classes are in class & level systems. I see people complain about the 5e Ranger being too weak all the time (in other editions as well, come to think of it).

I was speaking specifically in regards to classes in a class-based system. If you just throw together bits and pieces from a number of classes together into one character, you're probably going to get weird synergies, anti-synergies, and redundancies. You also lose the notion of class identity, which can be an important factor.

QuoteYah, I can be an asshole as well, but I usually wait till I'm locked in an argument with someone for a few posts before my inner-asshole comes out, lol

I just can't be asked to care, today. Attack the arguments or not, I don't give a damn about your personal opinions of me. Who are you, that I should care? Say dumb shit, get called out for it. If you take it personally, that's on you.

Quote from: Pat on January 18, 2022, 06:48:20 PMThen you're further compounding your idiocy, because you're criticizing the OSR based on self-reported data from a competitor using a different set of rules.

Right because obviously it's impossible there's any amount of correlation there. Not to mention the earlier study - which you reference - also showed similar information, which IIRC was done before 3e came out. If two sets of data show roughly the same trends over 20 years, pretty safe bet they're representative of the lay of the land.

Will there be outliers? Fucking obviously, nigh-everything falls into a normal distribution. And don't give me that "WotC is a competitor using a different set of rules" garbage, you know damn well that it's basically the same shit. One is old, likes flowery language and obtuse mechanics; the other is a bunch of SJW fucktards trying to push progressive agendas. It's still godsdamn elfgames.