To quote Robert A. Heinlein:
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

In the real world, an adventurer would be a generalist to survive what ever the environment throws at them. But D&D wasn't set up to model that; it was set up to model a team action, with a group of specialists in protected niches.

Quote from: woodsmoke;828876I'm fairly sure that's the idea at work. Which I completely understand may well be the best approach in the long run, but I'm lazy and really don't like fiddling with mechanics. I also have a bit of an aversion to system crafting thanks to several years of going from game to house rules to home brew to new game in my older brother's games as he chased The Perfect System™. I don't think my current DM will run afoul of that, but it's still not an appealing prospect.


...

The thought (finally) occurs I should probably write something up to give a better idea of what we're trying to do and hopefully narrow down the breadth of info a bit. Hopefully I can find some time to sit down and hammer that out later.

People don't seem to get there is no perfect game.  There are favorable system to setting and system to playstyle matches, in broad strokes.  

Similarly, taken to the next, painful, time-consuming level, only a system written specifically for a setting can properly represent it for a long-term, deep immersive game.  

Now, obviously house-ruling can make up for a lot of this, as can having the system/setting match in mind and system/style matches in mind when creating the setting.

I had continually houseruled and changed and houseruled my main campaigns in the late 70s and early 80s, but when I started on the blocks for Celtricia, I realized after some of the creative work had really gone in that no ones skill system and no ones magic system actually buttressed the foundational setting.  I mean, I could have forced it, but it would have been, as almost all matches really are, incongruent.

Quote from: dbm;828964To quote Robert A. Heinlein:
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

In the real world, an adventurer would be a generalist to survive what ever the environment throws at them. But D&D wasn't set up to model that; it was set up to model a team action, with a group of specialists in protected niches.

Whereas a good skill based games often have a bunch of generalists, with similar survival skills, with some areas or competence and expertise.

Quote from: Ravenswing;828760One of the problems with the D&D paradigm, I feel, is that it's traditionally promoted INcompetence outside your class abilities.  You're a magic-user, so you're not supposed to be able to fight.  You're a warrior, so you're not supposed to be stealthy.  Etc.

This one I agree with, it's especially annoying in the "no stealth for tin cans" form.  In most systems Assassins are a type of Thief.  When you want someone killed, you don't hire a cat burglar, you hire a soldier.  He get's better at it, and then makes it his life work.  Assassin's are not thieves with special killing skills, they are killers who learned to do it quietly.  That's just a pet peeve, but that's why in general I'm souring on class systems unless they are very, very broad.

Quote from: CRKrueger;828978This one I agree with, it's especially annoying in the "no stealth for tin cans" form.  In most systems Assassins are a type of Thief.  When you want someone killed, you don't hire a cat burglar, you hire a soldier.  He get's better at it, and then makes it his life work.  Assassin's are not thieves with special killing skills, they are killers who learned to do it quietly.  That's just a pet peeve, but that's why in general I'm souring on class systems unless they are very, very broad.

Or even the idea that there is only one way to learn or come by a skill set like that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;828978This one I agree with, it's especially annoying in the "no stealth for tin cans" form.  In most systems Assassins are a type of Thief.  When you want someone killed, you don't hire a cat burglar, you hire a soldier.  He get's better at it, and then makes it his life work.  Assassin's are not thieves with special killing skills, they are killers who learned to do it quietly.  That's just a pet peeve, but that's why in general I'm souring on class systems unless they are very, very broad.

When I want someone killed I hire an assassin. Or a duelist if dueling is a thing. When I want a hill, fort, or town taken or held, I hire a bunch of soldiers.

Quote from: Arminius;828909Oh, yeah, in the same vein there's Legend (Mongoose) which is basically a first-draft of RQ6, in PDF for $1. It's probably a little more complete than RQ essentials, if less refined.

Legend v RQE:



On the professions/careers - RQE has fewer but more descriptive careers, Legend has more, in a chart form, but no description of the professions. In magic systems, RQE doesn't have sorcery, Folk is a re-write (and re-think) of Common Magic, Theism is equivalent to Divine from Legend.

I joim the choir or raccomandation od runequest/brp/stormbringer. It tends do be gritty and letal.

For light free form fantasy, Barbarian Of Lemuria excell at eclectic and competent characters.



I also love (at least in paper, I haven't tryed it yet) greg stolze's reign, based on a adapted version of the one roll engine (enchiridion version is cheaper and does not include the weird setting). It's skill based, it's well suited for very competent character but remains quite letal. If you turn on all the options combat can become quite cruchy, but there's a free supplement with a "fluid combat system" quite similar to the wonderful manouver system of runequest 6. The base game contains also pretty rules for handling organisations or reigns.

Warhammer can be another interesting choice. It's career path system is more an on game life-path than a class system. But magic users tend to need extreme focalization.



But I don't think it's strictly necessary to go out of the d&d paradigm to get what you want.

For exemple, Background skills in D&D 5th give characters chance to be good at skills not normally linked to the class, and most of the melee classes have sub paths that dabbles in magic. Pick the rogue arcane trickster as an exemple: You've got an exemple of character that excell at many skills, can do a lot of a harm in a fight and have some magical power.

Another exemple is Spears of the dawn. Although inspired on OD&D, the game (as every Sine Nomine game) has a pretty open class, a simple and elegant skill system. In spears there's just a non magic user class, who can be heavly personalized with skills and talents (talents are quite like feat, but much more defining). Magic user classes are not inerently inept at everything else either.  (plus kevin crawford's games are always a gold mine of DM material and suggestions, regardless of the system used).

It's perfectly possible to obtain your goal of having eclectic characters without ditching completly all the d&d trappings (which have many virtues) .

Quote from: Bilharzia;829005Legend v RQE:



On the professions/careers - RQE has fewer but more descriptive careers, Legend has more, in a chart form, but no description of the professions. In magic systems, RQE doesn't have sorcery, Folk is a re-write (and re-think) of Common Magic, Theism is equivalent to Divine from Legend.

So what you're saying is...  Get both!  Sold!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;829031So what you're saying is...  Get both!  Sold!

No, I'm saying 'get RQ6'

maybe I need to amend my chart...

Quote from: Bilharzia;829032No, I'm saying 'get RQ6'

maybe I need to amend my chart...

For the price of ONE WHOPPING DOLLAR!  You can get more magic, professions/careers that will likely mesh with RQ6.  Why wouldn't get both and get the best of both worlds if you can afford it?

I'm on disability and I can afford that.

I'm surprised at the breadth of RQE; obviously I didn't know that. One thing to know, some of the material from the full version of RQ6 also has a first-draft in the free Signs and Portents PDF magazine (number 86?). Basically a couple other magic systems.

EDIT: Sorry, 89&90. I think there's a free doc on rpgnow with the same info.

Either way, I feel RQ got a little too elaborate for me in the Mongoose and later iterations, but those have some excellent ideas that I would like to use selectively with other BRP-based games. E.g. both the additional/revised magic systems and the idea of combat moves that let you choose some special tactical effect on a good roll, instead of just causing extra damage.

Quote from: Arminius;829040Either way, I feel RQ got a little too elaborate for me in the Mongoose and later iterations, but those have some excellent ideas that I would like to use selectively with other BRP-based games. E.g. both the additional/revised magic systems and the idea of combat moves that let you choose some special tactical effect on a good roll, instead of just causing extra damage.

I'm kinda in the same boat... I've always liked the lighter versions of BRP... Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer... but Runequest 6 has so many good bits I keep annexing into my Magic World games that it seems inevitable that at some point I'll be running RQ6.

Quote from: Arminius;829040I'm surprised at the breadth of RQE; obviously I didn't know that. One thing to know, some of the material from the full version of RQ6 also has a first-draft in the free Signs and Portents PDF magazine (number 86?). Basically a couple other magic systems.

EDIT: Sorry, 89&90. I think there's a free doc on rpgnow with the same info.

Either way, I feel RQ got a little too elaborate for me in the Mongoose and later iterations, but those have some excellent ideas that I would like to use selectively with other BRP-based games. E.g. both the additional/revised magic systems and the idea of combat moves that let you choose some special tactical effect on a good roll, instead of just causing extra damage.

Bigger chart:


Yes, no great harm in getting Legend if you're on a budget and as Arminius says lots in Signs & Portents which is free. My chart is pretty crude, for one thing, 'more is better' is not necessarily true, but I think in this case it is. It also misses out lots of things RQ6 expands on and adds - much fuller character generation and background, passions, cults & brotherhoods, gamemastery advice etc.

It's possible to piece together lots of bits from various sources to 'bulk up' Legend, to get something like a Fraken-Quest, what you're buying with RQ6 (if it's within your budget) is a system which has been re-written and sometimes re-designed to work consistently as a whole.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;829033For the price of ONE WHOPPING DOLLAR!  You can get more magic, professions/careers that will likely mesh with RQ6.  Why wouldn't get both and get the best of both worlds if you can afford it?

I'm on disability and I can afford that.

It's true that you might get more out of both, but look at the difference in what you actually get: