Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1089109That's not exactly what I said. I said there was a choice between two unpleasant options forced by the limitations of a leveling system. Either 1) design the monsters to scale with level, or 2) create new monsters for every challenge rating. Option 1 has the benefit of reducing monster bloat, since basically every monster can be reduced to sets of recurring archetypes, but it has the downside of potentially going in the other direction and being too homogenous; but by the same token it keeps monster families like goblinoids and beastmen relevant at all levels. Option 2 ultimately results in absurd degrees of monster bloat, but in the short term it means you have more options. Basically two ends of a sliding scale, with no correct point on the scale because every point has benefits and drawbacks.

I dont see those two things as being at ends of a sliding scale at all.  Take Dragons for example, you can have weak and strong Dragons and at the same time you can have thousands of different types of Dragon.

QuoteIn real life there's no such thing as levels. The world's strongest body builder could die from a simple snake or spider bite. This generally remains true even in most fiction about monster slayers. A fairytale hero could kill a giant with one arrow yet still be stung to death by a mundane scorpion. Obviously that doesn't happen in D&D. Probably my favorite exploration of this is a D&D/Harry Potter crossover fanfic where a D&D character speculates that Earthlings don't have Will saves.

And I'm starting to digress into martial/caster disparity again. Next I'm going to start arguing that martials should be allowed to train their pneuma/orgones/other Western equivalent of ki/qi. I'm stopping now.

The only non level based games that I can think of are super hero genre games where you have set level heroes and really no way to improve your character and you have to think of various implausible ways to explain why Thor and Black Widow are fighting the same people.

Weird, by definition, is judging the very first tabletop RPG by what's come since.

It's judging Monopoly by what Settlers of Catan is.

"Cops & Robbers" was a fine LARP until other more sophisticated LARPs came along.

D&D was good for what it did - but since the game was taken from the creator(s) and changed into something different from that initial design --- yeah?

The list of similar rule sets is expansive.

People have posted forever regarding the "Martial Disparity" that was addressed over thirty years ago: Magic-users were nerfed at low level because Gygax & Company KNEW casters would eventually outclass Fighters.

You're discussing history. Even with GURPS or HERO Fantasy, casters are the demi-gods in waiting that they are. It's Magic, after all.

Read Dragonlance? My issue isn't how powerful casters become but rather how Martials got nerfed in order to demonstrate caster superiority.

The big issue with combat roles is how inflexible the characters end up being as a result.

The Defender, for example can be fun when it in it's element, but horribly ineffective when not.  A significant number of their powers could do nothing when they didn't have anyone to defend, so the badass fighters weren't much good at fighting a duel should it be called for.  Even worse when you have to adapt to circumstances and use things like Ranged Attacks.

This ends up limiting the kind of natural intuitive tactics the part can adopt.  You think it would be a good idea to ambush the enemy at range and make them advance toward you up a slope? - no sorry the party's mostly melee based and has no real capacity to adapt.

Natural tactics fall by the wayside.  When you're forced to be a hammer, encountering anything that's not a nail becomes an annoyance.

It seems to me that roles work better when they're largely a product of the tools you choose to use - the weapons and armour you pick or the spells you have memorised - and that you are not forced to specialise to the extent that actually switching things around by circumstance is inherently disincentivised.

Some roles are more effective than others. I think 4E's major flub in terms of roles was making the Controller and Defender into two separate roles when both are effectively "mess with the enemy's tactics by limiting their options."

Having that as a class role is something that can be broadly applied. They don't just take the hits for allies, when ranged combat or single combat occurs, they win by messing with their opponent's tactics to make it easier for them to win. The duel might take a few rounds longer because they lack the knockout punch of the "deal lots of damage" role, but sometimes humiliating your enemy by repeatedly knocking him down into the mud while mocking his poor combat form as you whittle him down is more fun anyway.

The other two; "deal lots of damage" and "buff allied actions" are also generally applicable elements (the latter can work for solo duels if it's allowed to buff itself) that can be used in just about any tactical situation.

This is all my opinion, take it for what it's worth (0$)

All systems place restrictions on your character building. The way I see it all Classes can be divided on 3 basic Super-Classes:
The Strong (Physical prowess of any type)
The Smart (Mental prowess of any kind)
The Sexy (Personality prowess)

Now your character can have more of one or the other or be more balanced it all depends on you, but all you're doing is building from scratch a pre-existing class.

As for the casters becoming gods, fatigue system and humanity system combined with a magic system that divides magic in white, grey and black. With increasing grades of humanity loss and the fatigue points let you use any spell you have enough power to. But you could fall unconscious after casting it. Or you could turn into a Demon and therefore an NPC.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1088983Most of the PF classes are basically variations on each other. They don't need to be separate classes. There's an entire series of 3pp books which condense all those classes into custom selected class features for a single class.

I tried to explain the distinction, but clearly you think my explanation isn't sufficient. If you want another example of how these things are distinct, then here's an overview for 4e's roles and power sources and here's the spheres of X rules for perusal.

Nope. I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with your dissertation. FULLY. My point for the OP was, if you want more customized class capability, use a system that does that like GURPS ("I want a spell-casting martial skilled at healing wounds and stealing stuff").

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1088983I prefer not to deal with rules heavy games. That turned me off of Pathfinder long ago.

Preaching to the choir, m'lord.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1088983The meat of the sphere mechanics are the classes and the spheres. Traditions (and by extension power sources, which don't really exist in the spheres mechanics) are optional rules secondary to those, which exist simply for the GM to customize how things work in their setting or to enable character concepts.

Classes in the sphere rules are generic and role-focused in different ways than typical D&D classes. Approximating typical D&D magic limitations would involve taking a casting tradition like "wizardry" or "divine petitioner." Martial traditions, by contrast, provide some starting bonuses and enable character concepts.

When I FIRST experienced "spheres" with Mentzer's Immortal Rules, it seemed like "this is how your high-level PC functions as a deity."

Okay, Frank.

The modern concept of spheres is nice, but needs expansion to include classes other than Mages. Combat can have spheres (unarmed, weapon type and/or terrain), skill mastery can have spheres (persuasion, deception, theft, history, et al.), and divine magic can have spheres (go crazy).

There can be a near-infinite level of class + race + alignment customization for D&D that truly produces UNIQUE characters. Iconic personages, even at low level. I like to imagine a point where what the character IS presents levels of information that guides player decision beyond current limitation. Yes, this is already a thing and has been since forever, just not as I'm suggesting.

Maybe I'm looking at how the "trad-murderhobo" player can step up his/her RP a bit? I'm always pondering a deeper game that's simultaneously easier to play, if possible -

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1088983I tried to recycle the concept in system agnostic terms, but it's better if you just read those rules for an explanation. Here's the spheres of X rules for perusal. Here's an overview for 4e's roles and power sources.

If the 4e system doesn't make sense, then there's someone trying to fix it. One of the points raised, that I heartily agree with and think applies outside 4e, is that some classes' power source isn't well-defined. What exactly is the difference between a druid and a cleric of a nature god, or between a cleric of an archfiend or evil god and a warlock who made a pact with an archfiend or evil god, or between a druid and a warlock who made a pact with a nature god?

The fluff distinction between druids and clerics (and warlocks, etc) only makes sense with a more coherent theology than D&D settings typically have. Scarred Lands made sense by having druids venerate the titans versus clerics venerating the gods (much like Eberron, it was a setting made with D&D tropes in mind rather than a generic fantasy setting bolted onto the D&D rules). A similar distinction (perhaps echoing the old gods versus new gods distinction in proto-indo-european mythology) is the only thing that makes sense elsewhere but it has theology baggage that typical D&D fantasy kitchen sink settings can't really do justice.

But I digress.

Really liking your redefinition of RPG position. I'll read your work and hopefully have some useful contribution later.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1089124Weird, by definition, is judging the very first tabletop RPG by what's come since. .

So the fundamental mechanic has changed from  the players describing what they do as their character and the referee describe what happens?

A comparison between Monopoly and Settlers of Catan is comparing apples and oranges because both do different things with a board, pieces, and rules.

However with RPGs, players describing what they do as their character and referee describing the result has been a constant. And that advice and commentary on that has proven useful for even the latest RPGs.

This is speaking from having used the same setting, my Majestic Wilderlands, with a half dozen sets of rules for over thirty years. Irregardless whether I am using AD&D, Fantasy Hero, GURPS, Swords & Wizardry, Fantasy AGE, or D&D 5e, I am going to describe the City State of the Invincible Overlord the same to a player with a character standing within the Gates of the God.

The details of what happens when the player picks out a mark to pickpocket will differ between the different system. And those details will effect exactly how they approach the situation.

But in all of the this the high level view is that I described what the players see as their character while standing within the Gate of the Gods, they decided to pickpocket a mark, I in turn describe the result using the mechanics of the rules being used. Boardgames don't share this level of commonality.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1089109In real life there's no such thing as levels. The world's strongest body builder could die from a simple snake or spider bite. This generally remains true even in most fiction about monster slayers. A fairytale hero could kill a giant with one arrow yet still be stung to death by a mundane scorpion. Obviously that doesn't happen in D&D. Probably my favorite exploration of this is a D&D/Harry Potter crossover fanfic where a D&D character speculates that Earthlings don't have Will saves.

That realistic a combat system would not make for a very fun game where the player is invested in one character over the course of a year or more of play. In stories the characters are protected by script immunity if necessary to server the author's purpose; in real life to the extent that we get good stories it comes from selecting only the ones where random outcomes (and exaggeration) led to a good story.

Levels and hit points and so on give players the confidence to risk the character they've invested a lot of time in, not because they can't be killed but because they will probably have a chance to change course or deploy some resource like a potion or scroll before dying.

Quote from: Shasarak;1089117I dont see those two things as being at ends of a sliding scale at all.  Take Dragons for example, you can have weak and strong Dragons and at the same time you can have thousands of different types of Dragon.



The only non level based games that I can think of are super hero genre games where you have set level heroes and really no way to improve your character and you have to think of various implausible ways to explain why Thor and Black Widow are fighting the same people.

Maybe not a sliding scale. In any case, this seems to afflict leveling systems more than it does skill-based systems. I have no idea how to address it. I'm not qualified. Fantasycraft certainly helps with bookkeeping by making it easier to scale monsters (and thus remove some impetus for CR filler), but doesn't change the fact that monsters need to be scaled in the first place. I don't know how else to put it besides saying something along the line of: monster progression can be essentially broken down into small fish, medium fish, big fish, bigger fish, even bigger fish, even bigger fish that can shoot lasers from its eyes, etc.

The point about superheroes lacking progression is spot on. Progressions of increasing threat level seem to be a largely modern phenomenon in fiction. I don't really recall any clear examples from pre-modern periods. Superheroes having largely fixed capabilities is closer to how mythical heroes operated than D&D heroes increasing power with level.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1089248Nope. I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with your dissertation. FULLY. My point for the OP was, if you want more customized class capability, use a system that does that like GURPS ("I want a spell-casting martial skilled at healing wounds and stealing stuff").


Preaching to the choir, m'lord.


When I FIRST experienced "spheres" with Mentzer's Immortal Rules, it seemed like "this is how your high-level PC functions as a deity."

Okay, Frank.

The modern concept of spheres is nice, but needs expansion to include classes other than Mages. Combat can have spheres (unarmed, weapon type and/or terrain), skill mastery can have spheres (persuasion, deception, theft, history, et al.), and divine magic can have spheres (go crazy).

There can be a near-infinite level of class + race + alignment customization for D&D that truly produces UNIQUE characters. Iconic personages, even at low level. I like to imagine a point where what the character IS presents levels of information that guides player decision beyond current limitation. Yes, this is already a thing and has been since forever, just not as I'm suggesting.

Maybe I'm looking at how the "trad-murderhobo" player can step up his/her RP a bit? I'm always pondering a deeper game that's simultaneously easier to play, if possible -



Really liking your redefinition of RPG position. I'll read your work and hopefully have some useful contribution later.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. I didn't write any of the articles I linked to.

What you said is essentially how Spheres of X deals with things, although not to the same extent as you suggest (I think it would be really cool to expand spheres to cover non-combat skills). I think it is a really interesting concept, but I feel that it is sabotaged by reliance on the PF rules.

I think a purely skill-based system would indeed be better, but I haven't been able to find skill-based systems that really address the divide between mundane and magical sub-systems in games. I prefer a setting where there isn't (necessarily) an arbitrary divide between the magical and the mundane, but rather one of progression (barring situations where a magical skill exists by itself without a mundane basis). In that case, ordinary skills should become increasingly fantastical as they advance. For example, fighters can train so hard they can develop weeaboo fightan magic and healers can train so hard they can heal with touch alone. Something more in line with how pre-modern societies conceptualized the basis for their myths, a basis that is absent in modern times due to our upbringing under science and our projections onto the past. I don't know of any skill-systems that operate in such a way.

Quote from: rawma;1089538That realistic a combat system would not make for a very fun game where the player is invested in one character over the course of a year or more of play. In stories the characters are protected by script immunity if necessary to server the author's purpose; in real life to the extent that we get good stories it comes from selecting only the ones where random outcomes (and exaggeration) led to a good story.

Levels and hit points and so on give players the confidence to risk the character they've invested a lot of time in, not because they can't be killed but because they will probably have a chance to change course or deploy some resource like a potion or scroll before dying.

And that's a whole other can of worms. I'm probably not qualified to address it. Here's some starting points:

• https://theangrygm.com/death-sucks/
  
• https://mythcreants.com/blog/six-ways-roleplaying-games-approach-death/
  
• https://gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/tutorials/how-to-incorporate-satisfying-death-mechanics-into-your-game--cms-24147
  

I max my OD&D at 10th and use fast and equal advancement and I don't have issues with casters dominating the game; especially as the better spell choices create effects that benefit the entire party (haste, teleport, summon monster, etc). I've never see players of Fighters complain when the Mage nukes a room with a Fireball.

Of course, that changes when you have casters who crank out magic without considering it a major resource to be rationed.  Yes, I know rationing is anathema to today's RPG design, but rationing creates meaningful choices. It's one thing I really like about spell point games. Do I toss low level magic left and right in this battle, or do I hold it for a big casting?  

And scaling encounters means you're always fighting orcs. You don't feel badass if foes are always equals, not challenged if the system creates encounters based on the assumption you will win without casualties.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1089124Weird, by definition, is judging the very first tabletop RPG by what's come since.

Mostly pale imitations?

Quote from: Theory of Games;1089124Weird, by definition, is judging the very first tabletop RPG by what's come since.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1089828Mostly pale imitations?

If 5e had been an available alternative to OD&D, I am quite certain that everyone I played OD&D with would have switched to it; it's not a pale imitation even if there are issues with it. And lots of other games have achieved more for specific genres and styles.

OD&D was such a vague and open-ended mess that you had to build the game you wanted on top of it, but that's more to the credit of successful campaigns than the original game. But it's also a weird criticism of the Wright brothers to observe that subsequent airplane designs are better.