d20 without character levels?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

Is d20 without levels possible?

We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
level-less d20 would it still be d20?

Suppose I adjusted it to have higher amounts of XPs for the
level advancement (exponential scale like 1e) and gave only half
a hit die per level - would that be d20?

Is d20 just the core mechanic for handling conflicts, skills and
feats, etc OR does d20 also include the rules for generating
characters and character development?

In advance to all those out there who are going to tell me to
use something else - apart from d20 - I already know of 1000
such rule systems but..., The first thing people say to me when
I try to recruit them is "Is it D&D", the second thing they say
is "I haven't time to learn yet another rule system". I went to
the trouble of writing my background for Tri-Stat - but couldn't
find any takers. When I said it was "like BESM" - that just made
things worse - they thought I wanted them to play an Anime
character. I'm thinking that if I have rules based on d20 - I
will be able to say to them "Yes - it's very like D&D" (lying
through my teeth, because the only resemblance to D&D will be
the core mechanic).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> writes:

> Is d20 without levels possible?

> We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
> level-less d20 would it still be d20?

According to the technical definition of "d20", yes, it would, though
I suspect that a lot of people who find "d20" a selling point wouldn't
be interested in it.

> Suppose I adjusted it to have higher amounts of XPs for the
> level advancement (exponential scale like 1e) and gave only half
> a hit die per level - would that be d20?

Absolutely. The exponential scale is one of the variants in
/Unearthed Arcana/, and re-jiggering the damage mechanic is one of
the most common things that d20 games change from D&D.
[...]
> I'm thinking that if I have rules based on d20 - I will be able to
> say to them "Yes - it's very like D&D" (lying through my teeth,
> because the only resemblance to D&D will be the core mechanic).

Well, I'd be pretty irritated to learn that a GM had lied to me when
he pitched the game.

--
Matt Pillsbury
pillsy[at]mac[dot]com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

As a proponent of Fudge I have the "I don't know that system so I wont play"
problem very often. My advice, go ahead and write the game you want to
write. Sell it to the players based on the _setting_ not the system. Offer
a one-shot adventure with (mostly) pre-generated characters to get them into
the setting. (leave a little room for them to customize the character). I
even like to have players go into the game with just the setting info and
little or no character generation done before hand. This article describes
how: http://www.fudgefactor.org/2004/05/05/fudge_on_the_fly.html . Even if
you don't know or play Fudge it's good advice.

Remember, our hobby is called role-playing... and _playing_ implies "having
fun" <G>

Mitch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On 24 Nov 2004 00:41:15 -0800, Matt Pillsbury <mtp@seesig.com>
wrote:

>shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> writes:
>
>> Is d20 without levels possible?
>
>> We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
>> level-less d20 would it still be d20?
>
>According to the technical definition of "d20", yes, it would

Thanks for the advice Matt and don't take my other (rather rude)
post too seriously. I've been let down a few times by players
showing interest in the background and backing out when they
learnt that I was using a rule system they were unfamiliar with.
I shouldn't take that out on you - after you were so kind to
post me advice. So - please accept my apology for the rudeness
of my previous post.

I will write my new d20 rules today. [I meant - edit the system
reference docs]

If I can't get players for this game I will get a new job and
move to a big city or something!!

>, though
>I suspect that a lot of people who find "d20" a selling point wouldn't
>be interested in it.

I suspect that a lot of people play D&D because it's easy to get
a D&D game - as so many other people know how to play it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

shoggoth wrote:

> Is d20 without levels possible?
>
> We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
> level-less d20 would it still be d20?

Well, technically M&M is OGL and not d20 STL, but that's not that much of a
distinction.

In any case, though, M&M is already almost levelless. "Level" is simply
used to set points and set limits on powers and abilities. Find a
different way to set those limits, and you can easily convert it to a fully
point-based system.

> Is d20 just the core mechanic for handling conflicts, skills and
> feats, etc OR does d20 also include the rules for generating
> characters and character development?

To use the "d20" logo and trademarks, you have to use their rules for
character generation and development.

What constitutes a "real d20" game, on the other hand, is a matter of
opinion. Most people seem to consider M&M to be one, in spite of the fact
that it can't call itself one under the d20 STL.

Technically speaking, the "d20 System" includes everything that's in the d20
System Reference Document. So it also includes hit points, the rules for
movement, opportunity attacks, the different "conditions" that the game
describes and their effects, etc. Most of these things can be changed and
still have a "d20 System" game under the STL, but the more of them you
change, the less likely it is that people will consider it to really be a
"d20" game.

> In advance to all those out there who are going to tell me to
> use something else - apart from d20 - I already know of 1000
> such rule systems but..., The first thing people say to me when
> I try to recruit them is "Is it D&D", the second thing they say
> is "I haven't time to learn yet another rule system".  I went to
> the trouble of writing my background for Tri-Stat - but couldn't
> find any takers. When I said it was "like BESM" - that just made
> things worse - they thought I wanted them to play an Anime
> character.  I'm thinking that if I have rules based on d20 - I
> will be able to say to them "Yes - it's very like D&D" (lying
> through my teeth, because the only resemblance to D&D will be
> the core mechanic).

I wouldn't recommend lying to people you want to get to play your game. It
sets a bad precedent.

What I'd really recommend is *talking to your potential players*. You say
they're asking "is it D&D" rather than "is it d20". They may *only* be
interested in D&D, and not other d20 games. Talk to them about your
setting -- they might have recommendations for a d20 system to run it with.
And getting them involved "on the ground floor" like that will help
increase their interest.

--
ZZzz |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efindel@earthlink.net>
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

>>>>> "s" == shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> writes:

s> The first thing people say to me when I try to recruit them is
s> "Is it D&D", the second thing they say is "I haven't time to
s> learn yet another rule system". [...] I'm thinking that if I
s> have rules based on d20 - I will be able to say to them "Yes -
s> it's very like D&D" (lying through my teeth, because the only
s> resemblance to D&D will be the core mechanic).

Whether this works or not will depend on why they like D&D. If they
like D&D because they have an affinity for roll d20, add modifier,
compare to target number, they'll be happy with your system. If they
like D&D because they like playing half-elven ranger-sorcerers with
two big swords, or if they like playing D&D because they've figured
out where the sweet spots in combat tactics are, they probably won't
like your system at all.

Further, the people in both groups would likely be annoyed at the game
having been misrepresented. I know I would be; I've never played with
a GM again once he pulled off a dishonest bait-and-switch. ("There's
a surprise in this game coming up, but I'd rather not tell you about
it; trust me, ok?" is not dishonest, though I've only known one GM who
actually pulled it off successfully.) Better to be honest and play
with few players than to develop a reputation as a bait-and-switch
type of DM and play with none.

Charlton



--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:29:43 GMT, Charlton Wilbur
<cwilbur@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:

>>>>>> "s" == shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> writes:
>
> s> The first thing people say to me when I try to recruit them is
> s> "Is it D&D", the second thing they say is "I haven't time to
> s> learn yet another rule system". [...] I'm thinking that if I
> s> have rules based on d20 - I will be able to say to them "Yes -
> s> it's very like D&D" (lying through my teeth, because the only
> s> resemblance to D&D will be the core mechanic).
>
>Whether this works or not will depend on why they like D&D. If they
>like D&D because they have an affinity for roll d20, add modifier,
>compare to target number, they'll be happy with your system. If they
>like D&D because they like playing half-elven ranger-sorcerers with
>two big swords, or if they like playing D&D because they've figured
>out where the sweet spots in combat tactics are, they probably won't
>like your system at all.
>
>Further, the people in both groups would likely be annoyed at the game
>having been misrepresented. I know I would be; I've never played with
>a GM again once he pulled off a dishonest bait-and-switch. ("There's
>a surprise in this game coming up, but I'd rather not tell you about
>it; trust me, ok?" is not dishonest, though I've only known one GM who
>actually pulled it off successfully.) Better to be honest and play
>with few players than to develop a reputation as a bait-and-switch
>type of DM and play with none.
>
>Charlton

A very fair comment Charlton. I will try to make sure that they
know that the power-level of the character classes has been
pruned, the monsters are all different, that 30% of the feats
have just vanished, etc. I'll call it d20 fantasy. I wouldn't
want people who were wedded to D&D for the reasons you give. I'm
looking for more adventurous types (willing to try new things)
who just don't want to spend time thinking about another
mechanic during play.

 

[drow]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

In rec.games.frp.dnd shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> wrote:
> I would, of course, describe it as d20 fantasy, and elaborate
> that it uses the same core mechanic as D&D. That's what I mean
> by "like D&D" - like the mechanics.

"buy my car."

"i want a ferrari. is it a ferrari?"

"well, it's like a ferrari, and uses the same core mechanics..."

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: The defacto sub-standard.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:22:00 GMT, shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> wrote:

>Is d20 without levels possible?
>
>We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
>level-less d20 would it still be d20?

Mutants and Masterminds doesn't really have levels as such.
While M&M's power levels are vaguely analogous, really they don't work
like D&D levels, much. You don't get anything for going up in power
level except a higher ceiling on what you can purchase and experience
point advancement system is more like GURPS or Hero than it is D&D's
level driven system.

>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:30:05 GMT, shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> wrote:

>On 24 Nov 2004 00:41:15 -0800, Matt Pillsbury <mtp@seesig.com>
>wrote:
>
>>shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> writes:
>>
>>> Is d20 without levels possible?
>>
>>> We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
>>> level-less d20 would it still be d20?
>>
>>According to the technical definition of "d20", yes, it would
>
>Thanks for the advice Matt and don't take my other (rather rude)
>post too seriously. I've been let down a few times by players
>showing interest in the background and backing out when they
>learnt that I was using a rule system they were unfamiliar with.

But what you're talking about isn't going to solve this problem. It'll just
postpone the point where they back out on you.


--
Hong Ooi | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
hong@zipworld.com.au | STRATEGY GAME!!!"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- RR
Sydney, Australia |

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:39:21 +1100, Hong Ooi
<hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:30:05 GMT, shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> wrote:
>
>>On 24 Nov 2004 00:41:15 -0800, Matt Pillsbury <mtp@seesig.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Is d20 without levels possible?
>>>
>>>> We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
>>>> level-less d20 would it still be d20?
>>>
>>>According to the technical definition of "d20", yes, it would
>>
>>Thanks for the advice Matt and don't take my other (rather rude)
>>post too seriously. I've been let down a few times by players
>>showing interest in the background and backing out when they
>>learnt that I was using a rule system they were unfamiliar with.
>
>But what you're talking about isn't going to solve this problem. It'll just
>postpone the point where they back out on you.

Unless they don't back out.

Maybe they've just not had an opportunity to play in a world
where they could get into deep immersive roleplaying - which is
what I want out of them?

If they do back out then - at least we would all have learnt
something from the experience.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> wrote in message news:<n2g8q013qhpn11epf4aq7n4r4sja6tl0o8@4ax.com>...
> Is d20 without levels possible?

Just wondering why is it you want to get rid of character levels?

If it's to slow down progression then just divide the XP you would
normally give out by some arbitrary number.

If it's to stop the 'jumps' in power that levelling gives then try the
following:

Every time a PC earns, say, 10% (or whatever works) of the XP needed
for the next level let them take one benefit from it. e.g. For a third
level character they'd get benefits at 3300, 3600, 3900, etc. These
could be split up as follows:

+1 BAB
A new feat or 'feat-like' class ability (e.g. Sneak Attack, Wild Shape
or whatever)
An increase to an existing 'feat-like' class ability
All new Spells / Spells per day of one spell level
(Up to) 4 skill points
etc.

Of course this would mean that they'd have to decide which class level
they're going to take earlier than normal but I don't see that as a
problem. When they finally achieve they normal XP for that level they
get any benefits from it that they haven't yet (if there are any,
maybe 10 steps is too many?)

This also means players are more likely to be more forgiving of the
lower XP as they're still advancing fairly often anyway (just in
smaller steps).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:15:37 -0600, "Mitch Williams"
<m_a_w@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>As a proponent of Fudge I have the "I don't know that system so I wont play"
>problem very often. My advice, go ahead and write the game you want to
>write. Sell it to the players based on the _setting_ not the system. Offer
>a one-shot adventure with (mostly) pre-generated characters to get them into
>the setting. (leave a little room for them to customize the character). I
>even like to have players go into the game with just the setting info and
>little or no character generation done before hand. This article describes
>how: http://www.fudgefactor.org/2004/05/05/fudge_on_the_fly.html . Even if
>you don't know or play Fudge it's good advice.
>
>Remember, our hobby is called role-playing... and _playing_ implies "having
>fun" <G>
>
>Mitch

Cheers Mitch. I did just that. I used Tri-Stat (which is the
core behind BESM) and wrote out some lovely rules. As soon as I
mentioned "Tri-stat" they said whaaat and when I mentioned BESM
they said: "Oh no, not Anime". I replied "yes that's right, not
Anime", but by then they'd gone.

I will used d20 with the characters pared back to 1e
power-levels and the XPs per level based on an exponential range
such as:

Level
1 2000
2 6000
3 14000
etc.

or something similar. The outlandish feats removed. HD per level
half that of D&D.

I always enjoyed playing weak characters forced to live on their
wits and I'd like the PCs to try that too. If it just doesn't
work out, well, at least I tried. Next time when people who meet
me at a game ask "Do you GM?" I'll reply "Yes, but I can't find
any players". They'll say "We can't find a GM" and I'll reply:
"Perhaps you should consider going half the way?, I will".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

shoggoth@ryleh.con wrote:

> the characters pared back to 1e power-levels
>
> [...]
>
> The outlandish feats removed. HD per level half that of D&D.
>
> [...]
>
> I always enjoyed playing weak characters forced to live on their
> wits and I'd like the PCs to try that too.

Note that it's important to consider whether the players would like that
too.

And if they would, maybe the simplest way to play D&D at power levels
half those of standard D&D is to play D&D at the lower half of the 20-
level range? Even without diminished XP, 10 levels provides plenty
enough game time and neatly eliminates the more powerful half of...
well, everything, which seems to be in tune with what you want.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:14:41 +0100, Jasin Zujovic
<jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:

>shoggoth@ryleh.con wrote:
>
>> the characters pared back to 1e power-levels
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> The outlandish feats removed. HD per level half that of D&D.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I always enjoyed playing weak characters forced to live on their
>> wits and I'd like the PCs to try that too.
>
>Note that it's important to consider whether the players would like that
>too.
>
>And if they would, maybe the simplest way to play D&D at power levels
>half those of standard D&D is to play D&D at the lower half of the 20-
>level range? Even without diminished XP, 10 levels provides plenty
>enough game time and neatly eliminates the more powerful half of...
>well, everything, which seems to be in tune with what you want.

As I see it, the desired power range is closer to AD&D levels
1-5. Which I estimate map to 3e D&D levels 1-3. Anything above
that and I'm having to make all kinds of adjustments to my
background world to accomodate the rules. The rules shouldn't
impose themselves on the background world. It should be the
other way round if anything.

I'll keep people up-to-date on whether I manage to recruit
players. If I can't I'll have to go further to get a game but at
least I'll have my Tri-stat rules back

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On 25 Nov 2004 08:35:39 -0800, IHateLashknife@hotmail.com (Phil
Pettifer) wrote:

>shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> wrote in message news:<n2g8q013qhpn11epf4aq7n4r4sja6tl0o8@4ax.com>...
>> Is d20 without levels possible?
>
>Just wondering why is it you want to get rid of character levels?
>
>If it's to slow down progression then just divide the XP you would
>normally give out by some arbitrary number.

I decided to keep the levels. But I'm going further than that:
returning to the exponential XP scale of 1e, halving hit points
per level, getting rid of the supernatural powers and OTT feats.

Basically bringing everything down a notch. If players don't
want to play at these reduced levels then I won't want to play
with them.

>If it's to stop the 'jumps' in power that levelling gives then try the
>following:
>
>Every time a PC earns, say, 10% (or whatever works) of the XP needed
>for the next level let them take one benefit from it. e.g. For a third
>level character they'd get benefits at 3300, 3600, 3900, etc. These
>could be split up as follows:

No, it's not just the jumps in level it's the speed of level
advancement, and way these PCs shoot from being nobodies to
being the most powerful characters in the world in the space of
a year or two's gaming. Also, if I have a monster that is
supposed to be terrifying with 4HD then I don't want a 5HD PC
making mincemeat out of it (without having really earned to
right to do so). Nor do I want to constantly change the stats of
my monsters just to accommodate rising PCs stats - what's that
point of that? The very last thing I want to do is to get into
the syndrome of having to bring in more powerful monsters with
extra powers just so that the PCs will have a challenge.

All the standard D&D monsters from the MM are already gone. I
only have about 60 types of monsters, these are the ONLY
monsters and I won't be making any new ones up when/if the PCs
gain 5th level, nor will the monsters be gaining corresponding
levels too. And - you've guessed it - only demons, gods and
their servitors have stats of more than 8HD.

>+1 BAB
>A new feat or 'feat-like' class ability (e.g. Sneak Attack, Wild Shape
>or whatever)
>An increase to an existing 'feat-like' class ability
>All new Spells / Spells per day of one spell level
>(Up to) 4 skill points
>etc.

The problem isn't just the gains in stats, HD, feats, etc. Many
of the feats in D&D are supernatural and this is a game world
where people are not supernatural - only magic, and magic is not
innate. Those feats are banned outright.

>Of course this would mean that they'd have to decide which class level
>they're going to take earlier than normal but I don't see that as a
>problem. When they finally achieve they normal XP for that level they
>get any benefits from it that they haven't yet (if there are any,
>maybe 10 steps is too many?)
>
>This also means players are more likely to be more forgiving of the
>lower XP as they're still advancing fairly often anyway (just in
>smaller steps).

Not being able to advance a level for many months at a time (not
even from 3rd to 4th) never stopped me playing 1e and 2e - why
do people NEED their characters to become more powerful? - I've
played with loads of groups where we had no kind of gain in PC
power throughout the campaign (not D&D) - and we didn't worry
about that one bit. I'm not saying that this kind of D&D
development of PC powers is always bad but it needs to be kept
within reasonable bounds. Those bounds are reasonable for the
D&D universe but my game-world is in another universe where that
kind of thing doesn't happen.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

In article <KO%od.42573$jE2.37898@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, m_a_w@bellsouth.net
says...

>Offer a one-shot adventure with (mostly) pre-generated characters to get
>them into the setting. (leave a little room for them to customize the
>character).

Gee, you have players who accept pre-gens "as is"?

Just about every group I was with insisted on modifying the pre-gens I
gave them, screwing up the adventure because someone would inevitably
replace a skill or feat I gave to help with part of the adventure.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

shoggoth wrote:
> He can see the magic rules. He just doesn't get to see the advanced
> spells which his character couldn't possibly know about anyway. The
> only thing his character could know about those advanced spells are
> names and approximate effects. I shall let him see 30 basic spells in
> those rules. The other (100+) higher level spells work on the same
> principles but are only available at higher levels and he will just
> have to extrapolate according to his imagination.

Why bother? That only works once anyway, just like keeping the Monster
Manual or DMG secret.

> I'm not empowering the potential players. I'd only want to
> empower actual players - but only if they put the effort in do
> they deserve the effort back from me.

Bah. If there's anything more stupid than the God GM idea, it's the
Mysterious God GM. Indeed, the latter is one of the main reasons why the
God GM idea is stupid.

> After all why should I write 100+ spell details out when 90% of those
> spells are unlikely to get cast unless players stick with the campaign
> for at least 4 months?

Even better -- the Lazy Mysterious God GM. Good luck with that.

> Is that reasonable?

No. You want to run a game, do your homework first. Like you said above:
You only deserve the Big Chair if you put in the effort.

> How does it empower me to waste my time --

So it's much better to waste the players' time instead, eh? Lying to
them about what you plan to run, keeping the rules secret, etc. Shoo.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

shoggoth wrote:
> He can see the magic rules. He just doesn't get to see the advanced
> spells which his character couldn't possibly know about anyway. The
> only thing his character could know about those advanced spells are
> names and approximate effects. I shall let him see 30 basic spells in
> those rules. The other (100+) higher level spells work on the same
> principles but are only available at higher levels and he will just
> have to extrapolate according to his imagination.

If this really neccessary, think about looking for other players. A good
player should be able to distinguish what his character may know or not,
and also play his character this way. If it ain't working this way in your
group, your're out of luck. Godlike secrecy used against the players is
bad ... very bad. Never ever try to do this!

> After all why should I write 100+ spell details out when 90% of those
> spells are unlikely to get cast unless players stick with the campaign
> for at least 4 months?

Who told you that you need to do this? If none of the players is capable of
weilding mighty, mighty mojo, you can design higher magic at a later time.

--
To get my real email adress, remove the two onkas
--
Hendrik Belitz
- Abort, Retry, Fthagn? -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> wrote in
news:n2g8q013qhpn11epf4aq7n4r4sja6tl0o8@4ax.com:

> Is d20 without levels possible?
>
> We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
> level-less d20 would it still be d20?
>
> Suppose I adjusted it to have higher amounts of XPs for the
> level advancement (exponential scale like 1e) and gave only half
> a hit die per level - would that be d20?
>
> Is d20 just the core mechanic for handling conflicts, skills and
> feats, etc OR does d20 also include the rules for generating
> characters and character development?

d20 is a (pretty darned successful) marketing ploy by WotC. If you want to
call your game d20 and it follows the rules of the d20 liscense, then it's
d20, whether you have classes, levels, or even d20s in the game. There is
absolutely nothing stopping you from publishing your homebrew that uses
tarot cards and bottlerockets for conflict resolution and calling it d20 if
it makes you happy, as long as you follow all the other rules.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> wrote in
news:a0p8q01fi38rekud63iiipkf81n9pi24ef@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:39:21 +1100, Hong Ooi
> <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:30:05 GMT, shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 Nov 2004 00:41:15 -0800, Matt Pillsbury <mtp@seesig.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>shoggoth <shoggoth@rlyeh.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Is d20 without levels possible?
>>>>
>>>>> We have classless d20 (Mutants and Masterminds). If I wrote a
>>>>> level-less d20 would it still be d20?
>>>>
>>>>According to the technical definition of "d20", yes, it would
>>>
>>>Thanks for the advice Matt and don't take my other (rather rude)
>>>post too seriously. I've been let down a few times by players
>>>showing interest in the background and backing out when they
>>>learnt that I was using a rule system they were unfamiliar with.
>>
>>But what you're talking about isn't going to solve this problem. It'll
>>just postpone the point where they back out on you.
>
> Unless they don't back out.
>
> Maybe they've just not had an opportunity to play in a world
> where they could get into deep immersive roleplaying - which is
> what I want out of them?
>

Who cares if she says no, if I stick my dick in her she's sure to like
it.



> If they do back out then - at least we would all have learnt
> something from the experience.

They'd have learned not to trust you.


>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

clarkrs@mindspring.com wrote:

> >>But what you're talking about isn't going to solve this problem. It'll
> >>just postpone the point where they back out on you.
> >
> > Unless they don't back out.
> >
> > Maybe they've just not had an opportunity to play in a world
> > where they could get into deep immersive roleplaying - which is
> > what I want out of them?
>
> Who cares if she says no, if I stick my dick in her she's sure to like
> it.

So that's what they mean when they say "deep immersive".


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On 24 Nov 2004 07:50:55 -0800, "Nockermensch"
<nockermensch@hotmail.com> wrote:

>shoggoth wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:16:19 +0100, Jasin Zujovic
>> <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:
>>
>> >shoggoth@rlyeh.com wrote:
>> >> What potential players want to know is 'will I understand the
>> >> rules'. I'll offer them edited versions of the d20 system
>> >> reference documents. They can have nearly the full rules if they
>> >> want - the same ones I use. [But no - they can't have the
>> >> monster rules too and can't see the magic rules unless their
>> >> character is a mage.]
>> >
>> >Can they have the crafting rules even if the character is not a
>> >craftsman?
>>
>> Yes. For crafting non-magical items.
>>
>> But there are no Feats allowed for crafting magic items -
>> available to sorcerers below, say 10th level because the Temples
>> won't allow such spells to be learnt by such low-level types.
>
>Interesting.
>
>> >Can they have the fighting rules rules even if the character is not
>a
>> >fighter?
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> >Can they have the jumping rules even if the character is not a
>jumper?
>>
>> They can have all these mundane rules.
>>
>> They don't get to have the special rules, which are basically
>> rules for monster stats and magic stats. They can have some
>> verbal and even written descriptions of the effects of spells
>> and reports from people who previously encountered monsters -
>> just as characters would get in any world.
>>
>> If they manage to learn a particular spell then the spell-caster
>> only can have the rules for the spell thus learnt.
>
>And if this spellcaster then explain the rules of that spell to his
>friends? And if these friends do the same to their friends? And if the
>world, with spellcasters, their friends and the friends of their
>friends is going this way for some time? Do you realize that there's a
>good basis for those verbal and even written descriptions being
>actually effective?

The Temples with the complete backing of the state will hunt
them down like dogs and kill them. Such independent (of the
Temples) spells exist but must be kept totally secret and
spell-casters can't just teach those spells to anyone - only to
their dearest friends and closest relatives - just so long as
they keep the secret too.

There are also high higher ability score restrictions needed to
do magic - so most people aren't going to be able to benefit
from spells you try to teach them because they won't have the
high abilities. At the same time, those people are then a
liability because they can always turn you over to the temple
for offering to teach them magic without authorization. So magic
learnt outside the temples is extremely rare.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

On 29 Nov 2004 06:07:35 -0800, "Nockermensch"
<nockermensch@hotmail.com> wrote:

>shoggoth wrote:
>> On 24 Nov 2004 07:50:55 -0800, "Nockermensch"
>> <nockermensch@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And if this spellcaster then explain the rules of that spell to his
>> >friends? And if these friends do the same to their friends? And if
>the
>> >world, with spellcasters, their friends and the friends of their
>> >friends is going this way for some time? Do you realize that there's
>a
>> >good basis for those verbal and even written descriptions being
>> >actually effective?
>>
>> The Temples with the complete backing of the state will hunt
>> them down like dogs and kill them. Such independent (of the
>> Temples) spells exist but must be kept totally secret and
>> spell-casters can't just teach those spells to anyone - only to
>> their dearest friends and closest relatives - just so long as
>> they keep the secret too.
>
>I'm talking about descriptions of spells, not spells. There's a
>difference.
>
>> There are also high higher ability score restrictions needed to
>> do magic - so most people aren't going to be able to benefit
>> from spells you try to teach them because they won't have the
>> high abilities. At the same time, those people are then a
>> liability because they can always turn you over to the temple
>> for offering to teach them magic without authorization. So magic
>> learnt outside the temples is extremely rare.
>
>The important thing here is not to teach others how to DO magic, but
>WHAT magic does. I don't know how to make explosives, but I know the
>smell of powder and I know what powder does when it burns in an
>enclosed space.
>
>For instance, suppose that in your world there's D&D's Charm Person. If
>people talk about magic then even an informed non-spellcaster could
>suspect that somebody is charmed if he sees a sudden and unexplained
>change of behavior. If Levitate and Spider Climb are known to exist,
>then guards will also look up when patroling their posts.

Knowing that someone is casting a spell on you is normally easy
enough to detect - they usually use incantations and hand
gestures. Stopping them doing it is not so easy. I imagine
knowledge of what magic does is quite common, at least among the
more educated. Magic is no kind of secret weapon in this world -
it's just restricted - a bit like handguns in Japan.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy (More info?)

shoggoth wrote:

>
>
> The Temples with the complete backing of the state will hunt
> them down like dogs and kill them. Such independent (of the
> Temples) spells exist but must be kept totally secret and
> spell-casters can't just teach those spells to anyone - only to
> their dearest friends and closest relatives - just so long as
> they keep the secret too.
>

Well, actually he was talking about teaching the RULES of the spell,
not the methods of the spell itself.

However, the Temples' approach to controlling magic will work:

a) Only as long as the spells in question aren't sufficient to
reverse the balance of power. ("Lina Inverse, we of the Temples insist
you surrender for your execution!" "So you're saying you WANT to see
me cast the Giga Slave again, with YOU as the focus?")

b) Only as long as there is no other power that doesn't LIKE the
Temples for some reason, and therefore will aid rogue mages. ("We of
the Temples command your execution, rogue!" "Fine, discuss it with my
patron, the God of Magic. He likes the idea of free exchange of ideas.")


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/