tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446461178381374626.post4615380443551136799..comments2024-03-27T23:28:19.341-07:00Comments on Telecanter's Receding Rules: RPG TaxonomyTelecanterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238356788092725244noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446461178381374626.post-6178829126293438352010-05-06T07:44:56.637-07:002010-05-06T07:44:56.637-07:00I'm quite frustrated. There is a book that doe...I'm quite frustrated. There is a book that does this, and it's free on the net. I think it's by Joe Williams. But I can't find it >:(anarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546197561922726279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446461178381374626.post-36338445295883143632010-05-06T07:43:15.034-07:002010-05-06T07:43:15.034-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.anarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546197561922726279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446461178381374626.post-88264061955081728942010-04-16T18:10:27.753-07:002010-04-16T18:10:27.753-07:00I think for me it's the total of all those qui...I think for me it's the total of all those quick glances-- to hit, saves, monster to hit-- in AD&D that have pushed me too want a more streamlined game. And, really, streamlining allows me to be more confident in making rulings-- I don't even need a book to DM with S&W, the rules are so streamlined.<br /><br />And you're right, I think adding detail to the luck roll makes sense <i>and</i> adds complexity. It all boils down to how much detail you're willing to accommodate the complexity for.<br /><br />I mean, I think some have criticized the classic D&D saves categories for their arbitrary nature. I can imagine someone wanting to specify them more clearly expanding to 12 or twenty categories.Telecanterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238356788092725244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446461178381374626.post-82534977010001628542010-04-16T17:59:43.825-07:002010-04-16T17:59:43.825-07:00Is the need to be able to memorise such a number t...Is the need to be able to memorise such a number that important, when a quick glance at the character sheet literally takes all of one or two seconds?<br /><br />I certainly agree that while an attractive option, replacing the save mechanic with a luck ability (or similar) is a coarse solution. While it works fine in a Fighting Fantasy gamebook, if you start actually defining what creates luck for an individual, such as a combination of quick relexes, mental alertness, etc., you get back to the problem of some classes/races/individuals probably being entitled to a higher luck score than others, thereby complicating the mechanic or at least making such a simple mechanic unsatisfactory and ineffective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446461178381374626.post-74379037295497293092010-04-16T17:36:47.147-07:002010-04-16T17:36:47.147-07:00Yeah, I agree. I think it would be rare that a de...Yeah, I agree. I think it would be rare that a decision on mechanics wouldn't involve a trade off somehow. But after analyzing, at least now we can talk more specifically about what we each value more.<br /><br />It sounds like you value the fine grain differentiation that having different saves for <i>all</i> categories gives. So for example, magic-user saves differently from fighter in everything but wands.<br /><br />While I'm pretty surprised that you can still save <i>some</i> differentiation-- magic user saves better against magic-- while keeping things simple enough to memorize.<br /><br />I do value the differences in the archetypes (or why have them, right?). So, I wouldn't want to go with options 1-3 above. I think they're too coarse a solution. But I'm sure others would disagree with me and would love the idea of a general luck roll and doing away with saves altogether.Telecanterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238356788092725244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446461178381374626.post-81543872986087484782010-04-16T16:06:30.172-07:002010-04-16T16:06:30.172-07:00Obviously the original five saves of D&D try t...Obviously the original five saves of D&D try to play to the various strengths and weaknesses of the various classes and races. While I think a single save mechanic looks elegant, it loses the power to make a class strong in one area, but weak in another. Simply making the numbers different for different classes doesn't overcome this problem. <br /><br />The only way to do so, I believe, is to make the save number the same for all classes and then introduce a system of bonuses and penalties by class/race. So, a magic-user might get a +2 save vs anything involving magic, but a -2 save to dodging dragon's breath because he's not as agile as a fighter. <br /><br />The problem I envisage with such a system is that just like as in the original five saves system in which the player would have to check his character sheet to find the right number (unless he's got a really good memory), under a single save system with bonuses and penalties, any elegance is lost for the very same reason, having to check the sheet for the right number. So then it becomes a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other. And so the question must be asked, is this an improvement?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com