| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| MaxKaladin |
Posted - 13 Apr 2007 : 22:33:03
One of the groups I'm in has been urging me to run a game for them. The thing is that they've been asking me to run GURPS and they've suggested I use the Forgotten Realms as my setting. Frankly, this doesn't seem like a very good fit. GURPS combat is far more lethal than D&D combat is and GURPS magic is weaker than D&D magic. I'm rather concerned that this will lead to the Realms, under GURPS, taking on a completely different feel from what it has under D&D. Not to mention the conversion nightmares.
So, has anyone else done this? Did you experience the sorst of things I'm talking about? How did you address them?
Thanks!
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Icelander |
Posted - 24 Sep 2009 : 02:21:04
Just to address the idea that GURPS cannot handle high magic, powerful monsters and dangerous fights without PCs necessarily* dying; I am now running an 'encounter' with two dracoliches (adult red dragon and an old sapphire one), two great wyrm dragons (black and white), a sixty yard long red dragon, about two dozen lesser dragons, four powerful warriors created with the Teeth of the Dragon, twenty dragonborn warriors and about sixty or so wraiths or other undead. And two necromancer cultists who'd be around 18th-20th level in D&D and a crusader who'd be around 15th level.
The PCs are fighting alongside a roster of heroes including the Knights of Myth Drannor, The Rangers Three, some of the Company of Crazed Venturers, many of the Harpers that follow both Twilight Hall and Shadowdale and some sixty other various individuals.
Spells are flying, people are dying... children are crying, politicians are lying too!
The system seems to handle it just fine. One dragon was brought down with an arrow to the eye, a lucky shot, and several others have been wounded with arrows placed by Merith Strongbow and one of the PCs. The crusader was stunned with a shot to his torso and then decapitated by a hero who jumped onto his dragon's neck while he was trying to regain control of his raging dragon and simultaneously casting a healing spell on himself.
One PC was cowering behind a tower shield enchanted against dragon's breath, but just emerged to throw a keg of smoke powder to the one standing on the neck of an angry dragon slowly sliding to a stop on the top of the tower they are defending. That PC just hacked himself through the scales on the dragon's neck with his bright sword, Cairlachan, "The Cleaver of Stones".
Another just unleashed the lightning from his Netherese Blast Scepter into the wing of a white dragon whose head is now uncomfortably close to him, hoping, undoubtedly, to spoil his landing (for which the dragon appears to have chosen the player character's location as his ideal spot). Sadly, the dragon appears to quite like a bit of lightning, as it did not faze him much more than a strong punch to the shoulder might faze a seasoned boxer. It appears rather inevitable now that a certain PC will come to possess first hand knowledge of why one should endeavour not to be shoulder checked by anything weighting 30 tons, particularly if it has a present velocity of 90 feet per second**.
A strategic relocation might be in order for our valiant heroes***, although such manuovres have not been their forte previously. But they have a plan and it was never intended that they should seriously contest the top of the tower against a flight of dragons, merely use it to sting them a bit before falling back into more narrow and defensible tunnels.
*Though they are always at the risk of dying, which is in my opinion as it should be.
**For the curious, a big NHL hockey player body slamming you at full speed has about 0.2% the momentum of the aformentioned dragon. Ouch. Picture an 18-wheeler hitting something at 50 miles an hour.
***Well, the guy who wants to puff out his chest and check the dragon back won't have a choice, will he? He'll be miles off no matter what he does, probably with every bone in his body broken. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 24 Apr 2007 : 23:40:29
Polaris is a role-playing game for the reasons you posted yourself :
Let’s talk about Polaris, for example. The goal is to create powerful drama through social interaction, rather than rules. The system revolves around “narration rights” (sort of) and a few ritual sentences (storytelling tools) that you and your Mistaken (sort of your personal opponent/GM) use in negotiating your character’s unavoidably tragic fate (both during conflicts and outside of them).
You have a goal and a system that describes how the players can reach it. Some games have both a system like this one and a system for all the "simulationist" details. Burning Wheel is one of them, D&D is not.
If you use AD&D 1E ruleset for some "messy details" when your real goal is to handle morale dilemmas, you are really not using the best game available. Of course it can be done if for all the players the Creative Agenda is very clear, but don't tell anyone you are playing "AD&D 1E", you aren't.
Like I said previously on another thread, I can do some "story telling" over a game of Monopoly, I'm still not playing an RPG.
EDIT : to make things clear, I'm not saying D&D(3E) is not an RPG because it doesn't support things like BW and Polaris do.
More later.. |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 24 Apr 2007 : 22:32:20
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
Here I disagree with you again. First of all, In my opinion this is probably the most important issue in role-playing. Why? Essentially, I see it concerning the Creative Agenda (as in “what I want from role-playing with this group of people”). In fact, I think it’s imperative to consider your Creative Agenda, as a group, in each individual campaign. Note that it (Creative Agenda) has nothing do with the *system* you are using, because you *can* play a gamist system (such as D&D) with a narrativist style or approach (e.g. less emphasis on “combat only” XP and more on “social” rewards and XP, more free-form role-playing, more emphasis on story and less on mechanics, more emphasis on the protagonists, more than one way to resolve conflicts and adventures, more emphasis on thematic and moral issues etc.) Whether you want to call them “methods” or “means” or “techniques” is irrelevant - it really is about asking “what kind of play would *all* of us enjoy?” and “are we all having fun, in this campaign and with these characters and the rules we’re playing with?”. It isn’t about “winning” or “losing” in the *mechanical* sense (e.g. failing a skill check or losing a combat encounter) as long as you’re enjoying the game (and I honestly think that is the only way, for players, to “win” in role-playing games).
I'm not sure we disagree that much on the first point, more for the second but I can't elaborate now.
If you bring Ron Edwards directly, I have to remind you about his "System does matter" article 
For those that want to grab a bit of RPG theory : http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/
Hmmm... please elaborate more on your opinions about my first point, since I (mis)understood that you don't think that playing a "rules-light" system or emphasizing "free-form" role-playing and storytelling is role-playing at all.
Ron did write about how system does matter, but note that he separated System from Creative Agenda in his GNS-theory (saying that System is really part of Exploration). It's just my opinion that system does *not* really matter - it is far more important to acknowledge and think about your Creative Agenda. Or, maybe system does matter, but only in the sense that it serves to fulfill in part your Creative Agenda. But hey, these are just my opinions.  |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 24 Apr 2007 : 19:57:05
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
Here I disagree with you again. First of all, In my opinion this is probably the most important issue in role-playing. Why? Essentially, I see it concerning the Creative Agenda (as in “what I want from role-playing with this group of people”). In fact, I think it’s imperative to consider your Creative Agenda, as a group, in each individual campaign. Note that it (Creative Agenda) has nothing do with the *system* you are using, because you *can* play a gamist system (such as D&D) with a narrativist style or approach (e.g. less emphasis on “combat only” XP and more on “social” rewards and XP, more free-form role-playing, more emphasis on story and less on mechanics, more emphasis on the protagonists, more than one way to resolve conflicts and adventures, more emphasis on thematic and moral issues etc.) Whether you want to call them “methods” or “means” or “techniques” is irrelevant - it really is about asking “what kind of play would *all* of us enjoy?” and “are we all having fun, in this campaign and with these characters and the rules we’re playing with?”. It isn’t about “winning” or “losing” in the *mechanical* sense (e.g. failing a skill check or losing a combat encounter) as long as you’re enjoying the game (and I honestly think that is the only way, for players, to “win” in role-playing games).
I'm not sure we disagree that much on the first point, more for the second but I can't elaborate now.
If you bring Ron Edwards directly, I have to remind you about his "System does matter" article
For those that want to grab a bit of RPG theory : http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/ |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 23 Apr 2007 : 23:41:00
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
here you're with me, "telling stories" is something really fun for sure, but it's not a game.
I tried one *indie* RPG and it was The Burning Wheel, that book showed me clearly what is the difference from an RPG with a narrativist approach and "telling stories" and there's a big one
*SNIP*...may be using a system (AD&D 1E) for "messy details" like combat, but they don't seem to use any system for what really matters to them (maybe handling conflicts, dilemas and characters growth, etc.) For what I know, I would say they're not really playing a game anymore. For those who may still don't know, there are many games that have great systems for such things (see those mentioned by Asgetrion).
Edit : I'm not trying to say that... *SNIP* ...is a bad thing or not, my point here is more to show the difference between "telling stories" and a RPG.
Let’s discuss this on a general level, shall we? Let me first state that unlike you wrote above, we clearly disagree on this subject. Maybe I am bit confused about your definition of ‘role-playing’ (and ‘RPG systems’) in general? You see, I am *not* saying that “storytelling” (as in “narrativistic style”) or using systems that emphasize narration or story over rules is any less role-playing than, say, playing Rolemaster or D&D.
I think that as long as *you* think you’re role-playing and using/applying some kind of *rules* (including creating protagonists for all the players in the game) that are generally accepted (or it says so in the rules) as a role-playing system, you really *are* playing a (role-playing) *game*. I think that it just doesn’t matter which style you prefer, or how much your sessions consist of “free-form role-playing” or “storytelling” as compared to, for example, conflicts and other situations involving the game mechanics or rules. You choose the game and how you *interpret* its rules and how often you want to *apply* them in your sessions. Please consider that it is very important to separate “gaming style” and Creative Agenda from the system you’re using, because you *could* play a narrativist game (e.g. Dogs in the Vineyard) with a gamist and perhaps even simulationist approach or style (for example, not care about the story or the moral and thematic issues and mechanics in the game).
Your definition (“telling stories has nothing to do with games”) would probably leave out some very important “storytelling” games out of the role-playing genre (e.g. Polaris and Baron Munchausen, just to name two). That would be a shame, since many “narrativist” or “themist” (mostly “indie”) RPG systems have revolutionized the industry with their innovative ideas and theoretical approaches to mechanics, techniques and gaming in general (for example, the concept of “conflict resolution”). Many of them may be “rules-light” and emphasize story over rules (like you wrote this is, in fact, *not* synonymous to “narravitism”), but they’re games none the less. If you don’t believe me, ask Ron Edwards (the guy who developed the whole “GNS-theory” and some of the games that concentrate on “telling stories” as well).
Let’s talk about Polaris, for example. The goal is to create powerful drama through social interaction, rather than rules. The system revolves around “narration rights” (sort of) and a few ritual sentences (storytelling tools) that you and your Mistaken (sort of your personal opponent/GM) use in negotiating your character’s unavoidably tragic fate (both during conflicts and outside of them). In essence (this may be a bit oversimplified) it boils down to a simple question: “What am I willing to sacrifice to get something in return?”. Maybe you could also ask: “Is this that I am trying to achieve really worth the sacrifice?”. Anyway, you *only* roll when you (or your Mistaken) cannot accept what the other party is offering or demanding, or when you check for experience (which happens when you act *against* your chivalric nature). It is a sad and very emotional *game*, that incorporates both the theme (a tragedy about the Knights of the Stars at the End of the World) and “narrativism” brilliantly into the mechanics. And yes, unless someone thinks a conflict should take place or cannot accept something that someone else said or declared into fiction you’re essentially in free-form “storytelling mode” ;)
quote:
Sadly, adding "narrativist" tools on D&D won't really do the job, because D&D is strongly built on a solid "gamist" core : XP & Levels.
In D&D, a player who choose a strategy in combat because of some "personality traits" instead of the best one is a loosing player. He's himself adding some CR points on the current challenge, WITHOUT gaining anything from it.
Of course some DM will throw some ad-hoc XP rewards on it, but it's a quick fix for an huge problem.
Here I disagree with you again. First of all, In my opinion this is probably the most important issue in role-playing. Why? Essentially, I see it concerning the Creative Agenda (as in “what I want from role-playing with this group of people”). In fact, I think it’s imperative to consider your Creative Agenda, as a group, in each individual campaign. Note that it (Creative Agenda) has nothing do with the *system* you are using, because you *can* play a gamist system (such as D&D) with a narrativist style or approach (e.g. less emphasis on “combat only” XP and more on “social” rewards and XP, more free-form role-playing, more emphasis on story and less on mechanics, more emphasis on the protagonists, more than one way to resolve conflicts and adventures, more emphasis on thematic and moral issues etc.) Whether you want to call them “methods” or “means” or “techniques” is irrelevant - it really is about asking “what kind of play would *all* of us enjoy?” and “are we all having fun, in this campaign and with these characters and the rules we’re playing with?”. It isn’t about “winning” or “losing” in the *mechanical* sense (e.g. failing a skill check or losing a combat encounter) as long as you’re enjoying the game (and I honestly think that is the only way, for players, to “win” in role-playing games).
|
| Jorkens |
Posted - 21 Apr 2007 : 08:37:20
I would restrict the location in the beginning and talk with the spellcaster about what spells they would want to use. If they are comfortable with the GURPS system they could do much of the conversion. If possible I would make new characters with GURPS not convert existing characters.
In general I would try to keep it as close to the book as possible in the planning stages and takes things a little on the fly when playing and change/make rules when you see that it is needed. It is difficult to say from the start what will be a problem or what the best solution will be. |
| turox |
Posted - 20 Apr 2007 : 23:23:57
The rules don't really need to be changed IMHO. I took a CR7 human stat block from one of the FR books and it turned out to be a 200ish point character with some things that needed to be created as Advantages or Skills. Magic is the part I see as tough. Sure you don't have to add any from FR and just have the wizard using GURPS spells but where is the fun in that? Magic is one of the greatest things in FR, best thing to do is create the spell in GURPS if it is needed. I wouldn’t restrict the game to a specific location. The only rule I just thought of for magic is in GURPS the higher the skill level you have the less ‘extra’ stuff’ you have to do to cast it. I had a magic user in a GURPS game with a skill of 25 or so and all I had to do was think I was casting it and it would go off. So you might want to change or get rid of that rule if you still want them going through the movements. I am even starting to think Mystra says that’s the way it’s supposed to be. |
| MaxKaladin |
Posted - 20 Apr 2007 : 21:54:56
I've been out of touch for a bit. Sorry for the late reply. I suppose it's possible to run FR with GURPS successfully. I suspect some of my reluctance is due to having used D&D all the previous times I've run the Realms and, thus, my "feel" for the Realms is influenced by D&Disms.
Let me tack on a second question. If you were running "GURPS: FOrgotten Realms", what would you do to adapt? Magic changes? Rules changes? Would you be try to restrict yourself to certain parts of the Realms? I'm curious.
Thanks for all the replies. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 19 Apr 2007 : 04:54:03
quote:
Originally posted by EvilKnight
I would like to riff on Skeptics comment.
I think Burning Wheel has really opened my eyes to how I would like the Forgotten Realms to play. My only problem so far is it does not support the high magic feel that the FR setting has (a little too gritty). That and all the work to get the nuances of the various life paths that would be available and the traits. I believe the BW mechanics would help any group get into a more narrativist mindset the way its mechanics work out.
High magic of FR doesn't fit with BW and the "harsh" lifepaths either. I thought about it during months before admiting there isn't much to do about it.
quote:
Originally posted by EvilKnight
I find myself constantly going back to the the BW books for ideas. I currently use the idea of stating intents/conflicts and consequences instead of straight success/failure for DC rolls. Take picking a lock on a door. As the DM I know the story will not advance if they cannot pick that lock (which from a simulationist view is very possible). Instead, as DM I state 'failure' means some unwanted complication happens (you make noise which attracts a guard, or an NPC that could complicate a relationship). Either way the lock gets picked. Doing it this way also gets sideline players involved because they can be asked to help come up with the possible complications. You know your doing it right when the players start liking it when they do fail the rolls.
I know next campaign I am going to push character Beliefs (maybe even Instincts and Traits).
Sadly, adding "narrativist" tools on D&D won't really do the job, because D&D is strongly built on a solid "gamist" core : XP & Levels.
In D&D, a player who choose a strategy in combat because of some "personality traits" instead of the best one is a loosing player. He's himself adding some CR points on the current challenge, WITHOUT gaining anything from it.
Of course some DM will throw some ad-hoc XP rewards on it, but it's a quick fix for an huge problem. |
| EvilKnight |
Posted - 19 Apr 2007 : 03:32:30
I would like to riff on Skeptics comment.
I think Burning Wheel has really opened my eyes to how I would like the Forgotten Realms to play. My only problem so far is it does not support the high magic feel that the FR setting has (a little too gritty). That and all the work to get the nuances of the various life paths that would be available and the traits. I believe the BW mechanics would help any group get into a more narrativist mindset the way its mechanics work out.
I find myself constantly going back to the the BW books for ideas. I currently use the idea of stating intents/conflicts and consequences instead of straight success/failure for DC rolls. Take picking a lock on a door. As the DM I know the story will not advance if they cannot pick that lock (which from a simulationist view is very possible). Instead, as DM I state 'failure' means some unwanted complication happens (you make noise which attracts a guard, or an NPC that could complicate a relationship). Either way the lock gets picked. Doing it this way also gets sideline players involved because they can be asked to help come up with the possible complications. You know your doing it right when the players start liking it when they do fail the rolls.
I know next campaign I am going to push character Beliefs (maybe even Instincts and Traits).
EvilKnight |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 18 Apr 2007 : 09:01:24
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
I'm a bit concerned about this talk about Ed's campaign..... I just don't want to see it get out of hand. We really don't have a straight answer on how his campaigns are played, except for the bits that he, and THO, have shared.
Just worried that people are making some assumptions about Ed's campaigns that could be taken the wrong way....
You are correct - we shouldn't be discussing or theorizing about it, since we can only make generalizations and assumptions on what little we have glimpsed he at the Keep. I would certainly love to hear more, since those tidbits and glimpses have truly whetted this nasty DM's appetite... (and I have to confess that I've already used some of them as inspiration in my campaigns.)
Let me just say that whatever style Ed prefers (and whether he applies any rules or not) I'd kill to get the chance to play in his campaigns.  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Apr 2007 : 05:25:22
Indeed.
If scribes are curious, I'd recommend you either read through what few tidbits Ed has shared, about his home Realms campaign, through his replies here at Candlekeep. Or perhaps attempt to pose some of these questions to him directly -- he may be willing to share a little more with us about some of his campaign experiences.
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 18 Apr 2007 : 04:52:43
I'm a bit concerned about this talk about Ed's campaign..... I just don't want to see it get out of hand. We really don't have a straight answer on how his campaigns are played, except for the bits that he, and THO, have shared.
Just worried that people are making some assumptions about Ed's campaigns that could be taken the wrong way.... |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 18 Apr 2007 : 04:16:54
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
I doubt that Ed has time to keep up with all that is going on in the gaming community, and thus I am somewhat reluctant to believe that he'd be familiar with it. In fact, I don't think Ed himself would ever label his style of play as "narravistic" but rather as "telling stories".
I'll return for a longer answer, but here you're with me, "telling stories" is something really fun for sure, but it's not a game.
I tried one *indie* RPG and it was The Burning Wheel, that book showed me clearly what is the difference from an RPG with a narrativist approach and "telling stories" and there's a big one
Ed's "home realms" campaign may be using a system (AD&D 1E) for "messy details" like combat, but they don't seem to use any system for what really matters to them (maybe handling conflicts, dilemas and characters growth, etc.) For what I know, I would say they're not really playing a game anymore. For those who may still don't know, there are many games that have great systems for such things (see those mentioned by Asgetrion).
Edit : I'm not trying to say that Ed's "home realms" campaign is a bad thing or not, my point here is more to show the difference between "telling stories" and a RPG.
|
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 18 Apr 2007 : 02:36:28
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
What I said is that Ed's "home" campaigns are indeed more "narrativist" than standard D&D but seems also to have an important "simulationist" style.
Hmmm... I don't think that Ed's home campaigns have anything to do with "simulationism". He and his players certainly strive for "realism" in the sense that the Realms (and its people) seem and feel as "alive" as possible. "Simulationism", by definition (as I understand it), refers to one's preference to play RPG systems that try to simulate life as realistically as possible in their rules (which AD&D 1st edition certainly doesn't). In addition to this, Ed's campaigns seem to always favour story over rules, which couldn't be further apart from pure "simulationism".
quote:
I could add also that pure narrativist approachs aren't friends at all with worldbuilders, what we all agree Ed is a great example I think.
I don't know how much Ed is familiar with RPG theory, it could be worth of a question on his thread.
Ed is a great designer who has created the Realms - probably the most popular gaming world ever. I would also ask you to familiarize yourself with The Shadow of Yesterday and the World of Near that comes with rulebook. Also note that *many* indie RPGs (which are mostly "narrative" games) are in fact designed to support and incorporate their "campaign worlds" in their *game mechanics* (Legends of Alyria, for example) which (in my opinion) only enhances the "feel" of the game.
I doubt that Ed has time to keep up with all that is going on in the gaming community, and thus I am somewhat reluctant to believe that he'd be familiar with it. In fact, I don't think Ed himself would ever label his style of play as "narravistic" but rather as "telling stories".
quote:
In fact, I have a friend who when he read some THO messages on these boards describing what FR "home campaign" is, said it was no more a role-playing game but group acting.
Well, I disagree. "Group acting" is just that - real world acting, without any game rules or environment attached to it (from roleplaying perspective). How would your friend define what a roleplaying game is? Most people I know would blurt out that "it's like acting - only with rules and dice and stuff" (which is actually a bad definition, but you get the point). Perhaps Ed's home campaigns consist mostly of free-form roleplaying, but they have characters who are written on character sheets and they are using the AD&D 1st edition *rules*. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 23:39:38
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
[quote]Certainly more "narravistic" than D&D, but a strong "simulationist" core no ?
Not in a GURPS style tought.
You mean that GURPS is not a "simulationist" system? I may have to disagree with you a bit there, since GURPS *does* have many "simulationist" (as in "aiming to be as realistic as possible without bogging down the game too much") aspects in its mechanics (e.g. a highly complex combat and skill system). It is no Rolemaster, though! 
Hmm I think I wasn't clear at all, of course GURPS is aiming to be "simulationist".
What I said is that Ed's "home" campaigns are indeed more "narrativist" than standard D&D but seems also to have an important "simulationist" style.
Then I added, but not in GURPS style, because after all, AD&D 1E doesn't have an "realistic" combat system.
I could add also that pure narrativist approachs aren't friends at all with worldbuilders, what we all agree Ed is a great example I think.
I don't know how much Ed is familiar with RPG theory, it could be worth of a question on his thread.
In fact, I have a friend who when he read some THO messages on these boards describing what FR "home campaign" is, said it was no more a role-playing game but group acting.
|
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 23:23:07
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
[quote]Certainly more "narravistic" than D&D, but a strong "simulationist" core no ?
Not in a GURPS style tought.
You mean that GURPS is not a "simulationist" system? I may have to disagree with you a bit there, since GURPS *does* have many "simulationist" (as in "aiming to be as realistic as possible without bogging down the game too much") aspects in its mechanics (e.g. a highly complex combat and skill system). It is no Rolemaster, though! |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 23:14:07
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
BTW, has anyone else also considered using something like Dragonlance Saga (a card-based "storytelling" system) in the Realms? I think something like it might work very well...
I did consider it when the SAGA system came out, but I could never really get a good enough handle on the system. Just curious, are there anyone here on the boards that actually managed to run the system (in the Realms, DL or others )with something near its potential?
I think we had a pretty good start in the only SAGA campaign (Dragonlance) that we tried. I used every trick in the books, especially all of those narration methods (e.g. reading the card's Aura or using the NPC on the card for guidance). It was truly a blast, in the beginning.
As I said, I was using the cards as creatively as I could for narrating actions, events and NPCs. For example, once a player (whose character was a Legionnaire) used Lord Soth (Eight of Hearts?) in combat, and I narrated him mercilessly slaying his foes that tried to surrender, caught in a violent and cold frenzy that disgusted and scared his fellow Legionnaires (he was prone to violent actions anyway ;)
Another of my favorite tricks was to use the card on top of the discard pile for events (either by referring to the list in Saga Companion, or just by taking a look at the number or the person on the card). If you played a card from the Dragon suit, there was a possibility that there would be dragons or draconians involved in the session. Or to use the Lord Soth example from above, probably something about death or undeath (e.g. the enemy commander was revealed to be a Death Knight, or a horde of zombies stepped through the ranks). Sometimes I'd even use the demeanor/nature descriptions on them for quick NPCs.
I tried to teach my players to use cards creatively, especially those with high values, since they'd play a role later in the game events. We did have some clumsy attempts (by players) at playing insignificant (low value) or Dragon cards for meaningless actions (usually for menial tasks or social actions) but I guess they learned their lessons pretty quickly :)
Where the system really fell apart was, ironically, combat. It was pretty completely "broken" and felt untested. We managed to avoid most of the pitfalls for some time, but when I tried to use monsters instead of pretty "average" NPCs (Dark Knights, bandits, etc.) it just didn't work at all. For example, there were really no rules for fighting several monsters at a time - you just defend with a single action against them.
Then there was the "Rule of Porthios", which meant that a highly magical leather armour provided three times the bonus to defense that a plate armour did... and since we are talking about a system that has no mechanics for random damage (always a fixed amount) pretty much nothing short of a hill giant punched any damage through that. This meant that players (and elven rebel princes ;) could go on a rampage against any number of "standard" Dark Knights without taking a scratch in melee. We even considered using a house-rule about random draws for "damage actions", but it just didn't seem to work...
This same rule applied to hitting and/or damaging monsters with high Physique and Defense values. Even the introductory module in the core boxed set pitted the PCs against a dragon, which they couldn't legally even hit (unless someone drew most of the Sword cards in succession for a high Trump score). They could use magic or missile weapons, though, but how about a group that couldn't or wouldn't use either?
I pondered this problem, and thought that perhaps it would be best if everyone tried the Impossible difficulty combat action against these "invulnerable" monsters, since the list of examples for actions included Huma defeating Takhisis as Impossible. If you wanted to slay a dragon by piercing its eye with an arrow, why didn't you just try an Impossible Dexterity vs. Agility action?
Thus I opened a can of worms I shouldn't have, and that pretty much killed the thrill and excitement of combat for us (an elven archer with Dex 9, armed with a magical bow and *always* receiving a Trump bonus... some helpful spells on him and you wouldn't probably fail against most of the "heavy-hitting" low Agility monsters).
Another funny but perfectly legal tactic we came up with was to use a scout to maximize the starting distance between PCs and monsters, and then use the Maneuver Action to keep away from melee while peppering your foes with missile weapons.
It was a shame, really, since every aspect of the game (besides combat) worked like a dream, at least for us. Magic was where this system especially shined. My players even used 'hybrid magic' and loved that they could be creative with their spells and add as much flavour to them as they only wanted to. In many ways the SAGA system was revolutionary and pioneered many concepts that are now seen in some of the best indie systems out there.
I have developed a dice system which would replace the cards and probably work way better from a mechanical point of view. Just roll 2d10 and use 10 to represent Dragons and a roll of double to represent a Trump success. But this would take away all the fun about narration from the GM and narrative and mechanical control from the players, and that was, after all, the heart of the card-based system.
I wonder if any of you guys had the same kind of problems with the combat system that we had, and how you worked them out (if you did at all)? Did it otherwise work for you and your players?
If someone would work out the flaws in the combat mechanics, I don't see why a SAGA-based variant card-system couldn't work in the Realms. There are even more iconic characters, monsters and organisations to put on the cards than there ever were in the Dragonlance cosmology. Why not have a 200-card deck with more "average value" cards? Or why not take it up a notch, and have values ranging from 1 to 20? Why not take the best parts from Marvel SAGA, too? For example, I always loved the 'Doom Pool' -idea. Hmmm... maybe we can work something out, hey? |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 21:18:15
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
I agree whole-heartedly. In fact, I am very curious about which system Ed would prefer for the Realms these days... D&D is a highly "gamist" system, and yet the Realms - especially Ed's own "Home Realms" campaign - is more "narravistic" in nature. This may sometimes result in various house-rules, when you try to fit certain aspects of the game world into a system that does not mechanically support them very well (e.g. the Weave, various "hedge magic" styles and the Chosen).
Certainly more "narravistic" than D&D, but a strong "simulationist" core no ?
Not in a GURPS style tought. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 17:03:18
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
BTW, has anyone else also considered using something like Dragonlance Saga (a card-based "storytelling" system) in the Realms? I think something like it might work very well...
I did consider it when the SAGA system came out, but I could never really get a good enough handle on the system. Just curious, are there anyone here on the boards that actually managed to run the system (in the Realms, DL or others )with something near its potential?
Never tried the Saga System, but there was something similiar out for Marvel that used cards (was out at the same time).
My group had found a major problem with it though. Often times 1 person would get all the good cards and another would get all the bad cards. Then also with a large party the cards started to become scarce really fast.
Overall my group was not very happy with the system. The players that hated using GURPS, were begging to play in a GURPS Supers game instead of using the card system. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 13:01:44
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
BTW, has anyone else also considered using something like Dragonlance Saga (a card-based "storytelling" system) in the Realms? I think something like it might work very well...
I did consider it when the SAGA system came out, but I could never really get a good enough handle on the system. Just curious, are there anyone here on the boards that actually managed to run the system (in the Realms, DL or others )with something near its potential? |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 10:35:56
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Generally all systems has an innate felling of its own; this combines with the input given by the players and DM's in question. When it comes to a setting, Faerun or others, it will always be a case of finding the rules combination that best fits the idea of the people involved in the game. A quick GURPS adventure with little magic would give you and idea if this system is able to give you the "realms-feel" you are after.
GURPS can never give you a D&D "feel", but it can give you a Realms "feel" although one will differ from the other.
Like you wrote, it is really up to you and your players to find the system that suits best to portray *your* image of the Realms. In my opinion the system does matter, but only in the way that it supports your image, feel and vision of the Realms also *mechanically*.
For example, D&D suits very well if you intend to run a High Fantasy combat-heavy campaign, but try to use it to portray a Low Fantasy non-violent campaign about craftsmen and merchants in Suzail and you'll probably (but not necessarily, mind) end up with either a bored DM or bored players. The D&D core system supports the former option very well, but you'd need to "spice up" the latter option heavily (either with house-rules or additional rules from other accessories, such as Power of Faerûn).
Let's say that I wanted to run a D&D campaign in Thay for 1st level characters. None of the players could create a Red Wizard, unless we changed the starting level accordingly (few levels of wizard and then a level of the Read Wizard PrC). They could create *apprentices* for Red Wizards, though, but not the "real deal" unless I decided to heavily modify the campaign or modify the Red Wizard into a standard character class. But if we chose 'The Pool', 'Donjon' or 'Over the Edge' as our system (just to name a few examples), there would no problem since you could always take, for example, 'Thayvian fire magic' and/or 'I am a Red Wizard of Thay' as your Traits. Note that *mechanically* there is no difference between the Traits 'I am an apprentice to a Red Wizard' and 'I am a Red Wizard' (the only difference lies in what is told in storytelling). These systems would capture a "novel-like" atmosphere and feel, while also eliminating min-maxing completely (as long as you disallow Traits like "I am good at *everything" or "I get bonus dice for all my rolls" :)) They would also allow all kinds of magic, and my players could come up with all sorts of spells in the same way that Ars Magica handles "spontaneous magic". |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 10:00:55
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
If I recall correctly it was mentioned that Ed still uses 1E/2E rules for his own game instead of going with the new 3.x rules.
You are correct. I wonder if he would still choose AD&D if he started the "Home Realms" campaign today, and had the choice from a vast number of games we have today? Would he rather choose a system which would emphasize free and shared storytelling over number crunching? (Or does the system in itself even matter to him since he would probably emphasize house rules and storytelling over rules anyway?)
BTW, has anyone else also considered using something like Dragonlance Saga (a card-based "storytelling" system) in the Realms? I think something like it might work very well... |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 07:43:20
Generally all systems has an innate felling of its own; this combines with the input given by the players and DM's in question. When it comes to a setting, Faerun or others, it will always be a case of finding the rules combination that best fits the idea of the people involved in the game. A quick GURPS adventure with little magic would give you and idea if this system is able to give you the "realms-feel" you are after.
GURPS can never give you a D&D "feel", but it can give you a Realms "feel" although one will differ from the other.
|
| warlockco |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 06:06:49
If I recall correctly it was mentioned that Ed still uses 1E/2E rules for his own game instead of going with the new 3.x rules. |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 01:07:03
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I used GURPS for the Realms on a couple of occasions and had no problem. In many ways it fits the Realms better than the D&D system as it makes the game more "realistic" and gritty feel. I must admit that I am biased, as I prefer skill-based systems instead of level based.
Now, as for the magic system; there are less spells, but one could always make those one really missed from the D&D system. The Mana-system does, for me personally, work better with the weave. Where the weave is strongest one has High Mana and where it is weakest one has low Mana. Wizards preferences for some areas could be explained by this.
I agree whole-heartedly. In fact, I am very curious about which system Ed would prefer for the Realms these days... D&D is a highly "gamist" system, and yet the Realms - especially Ed's own "Home Realms" campaign - is more "narravistic" in nature. This may sometimes result in various house-rules, when you try to fit certain aspects of the game world into a system that does not mechanically support them very well (e.g. the Weave, various "hedge magic" styles and the Chosen).
GURPS is a fine choice for the Realms. It is grim and gritty, but some people might think that it lacks some aspects of high fantasy that are essential to the Realms (elven HighMagic, for example). On the other hand, the system is very realistic when compared to D&D and eliminates the level-based progression (and all the problems related to it) completely. Personally, I'd rather have NPCs that are *very good* in what they do without having an adventuring backgrounds and all the perks that come with levels (e.g Hilmer of Waterdeep, who is considered to be the best armorsmith in the North, which he realistically just cannot be as a mere 9th level fighter in *mechanical* terms). Yes, you could have high-level experts and commoners who "earned their spurs" (=experience, skill ranks and levels) through hard work instead of hewing through an army of orcs, but the D&D 3.X *system* in itself does not support this line-of-thought very well.
It is really about what you and your players want out of the game. I see no problem in using MERP/HARP or GURPS in the Realms, but these systems would support a more "realistic" approach or atmosphere in your campaigns. They might change the "feel" of the Realms a lot, but not necessarily too much, because all the FR novels work that way (realistically, as opposed to "playing by the D&D rules"). For example, consider the following situation during a D&D gaming session: in a novel, when Drizzt parries a thrust that "would have impaled his heart, and killed him instantly" we know that if that thrust *had* hit him "in-game" he'd probably still have at least 100+ hit points left even after a critical hit (while it *could* be explained that he "avoided" the full force of the blow, reacting with the speed of a living lightning, this is not a *mechanical* explanation but rather slips into "storytelling"). So, instead of "thinking with their hit points" you would have players who'd come up with more creative approaches or solutions to campaign events and issues.
There are other choices, too. I think that almost any "indie" fantasy RPG would shine, if modified to fit in the Realms. The Shadow of Yesterday would certainly be worth the effort, and its rules have certain gamist/D&D aspects, too (which might make it more "acceptable" in the eyes of most gamers?). Typically these games are rules-light and emphasize storytelling (I use this term very lightly here) and conflict resolution over task resolution and simulationistic realism. It does not, however, affect the feel or High Fantasy in any way, since most indie systems support any style of game-play (mechanically and otherwise). Rather than roll for iniatiative and each attack or other action separately, you'd set the stakes for each conflict and roll only once (e.g. "We slay the whole Zhent patrol, and prevent the mageling from alerting Manshoon with his spells.") Epic? Check. High Fantasy? You bet. Again, it is more about what *you* (DM and players all alike) want out of the game, and sharing that tale with each other (whether it be Low or High Fantasy in nature).
But the best part is that more often than not indie systems feature very "open" magic systems that would portray the Weave and magic in the Realms far better than more "realistic" game systems. I especially like the trait/descriptor systems that let you create protagonists that might be the best in the world at something, but really lousy at everything else (which also lets DMs to create NPCs easily "on the fly" without referring to tons of rulebooks).
I may digress, but let me tell about a recent session in our high-level Realms (D&D) campaign. Our group's fearless paladin had entered a sinister pyramid during a solo session (which had ended just before a crucial combat). The next session begun, and our DM didn't want to run the combat for the paladin, since he had concluded that the solo session had probably been a mistake, and the paladin might die in combat before the other characters arrived. Hence as the rest of the group entered a dim hall, and defeated a bunch of monsters there, they found several corpses of these creatures that had been slain by the paladin. They also found the paladin himself, unconscious and bloated from poison. The paladin's player went ballistic, as he thought that the DM had "stolen his chance at glory" and "tyrannically decided the outcome of the encounter without running it fairly and according to the rules". I just did not see his point - would he rather risk *dying* than accept this compromise? Please note that *mechanically* no harm was done, since our cleric used Heal-spell on him immediately (restoring him to full health). I'd would have understood his outrage, however, if the DM had announced that he'd permanently lost something (like his magical sword or paladin abilities). The only harm was done to this player's *heroic image* of his character - he really thought he could slay the creatures and greet us in the hall, grinning widely and bleeding profusely while leaning on his Holy Avenger ("So, you did get my note. Sorry for the mess, but these beasts had no desire to parlay!" or something like that ;). Even if he had survived (unlikely but mechanically possible), he'd have been *very* low on hit points, and the cleric would have immediately cast Heal on him anyway. From a purely mechanical point of view, the same end result. However, from a storytelling point of view, a completely different matter.
To conclude my point: there is world of difference in *mechanical* harm (i.e. damage) versus harm in *storytelling* (or description) which truly sets many indie systems apart from more "traditional" ones. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 14 Apr 2007 : 22:17:13
Magic has changed significantly with 4th Edition GURPS, can't really go into the details, but before with 3rd and previous you pumped 1 fatigue per second into a spell, now it is magery in fatigue per second into a spell. Or something like that, I have yet to touch the magic system, but that is what one of my friends said and he is a BIG GURPS user. |
| MaxKaladin |
Posted - 14 Apr 2007 : 21:43:43
I've played and run GURPS 3E games, but this would be a 4E game. I don't know exactly how different those editions are, but my impression is "not very". It's something I'll need to study up on if I end up doing this.
That experience is why I'm asking these questions. I know the magic system is different and, on the whole, far less powerful than D&D (in whatever form). I know the combat works differently and tends to be more lethal (or realistic, if you prefer, I think the terms are basically the same thing in this context) than D&D.
Realms magic, for instance, seems to involve a lot of effects that just can't be done in GURPS or are far, far more difficult to do. Turox gave exactly the example I was thinking of with fireballs. Fireballs are not exactly uncommon in the Realms, but GURPS just can't do the sort of fireball D&D has. It seems the relatively low power of GURPS spells would result in a far different feel. How do you even do Elminster (for example) in GURPS? Or Vangerdahast? Or even your average Red Wizard of Thay?
In a more general sense, it seems as if the realms are basically a "high fantasy" sort of world while GURPS is intended as a "low fantasy" sort of system. Thus, I'm not sure they fit. I realize you don't necessarily need to run either one that way. Still, it seems there is a certain gap in feel.
|
| Jorkens |
Posted - 14 Apr 2007 : 07:40:53
I used GURPS for the Realms on a couple of occasions and had no problem. In many ways it fits the Realms better than the D&D system as it makes the game more "realistic" and gritty feel. I must admit that I am biased, as I prefer skill-based systems instead of level based.
Now, as for the magic system; there are less spells, but one could always make those one really missed from the D&D system. The Mana-system does, for me personally, work better with the weave. Where the weave is strongest one has High Mana and where it is weakest one has low Mana. Wizards preferences for some areas could be explained by this. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 14 Apr 2007 : 01:57:33
GURPS combat isn't more lethal, its just more "Realistic" is all.
As to the magic, GURPS Magic is both easier and more complex than D&D Magic at the same time. Think of GURPS Magic as more of a mana point based magic system, a Mage could basically light up his pipe all day long with no problems, while in D&D that same Mage could do it maybe 8 times at most a day (unless he wanted to start converting 1st level or higher slots for it).
As to flavor, where GURPS will lose out on flavor is for some of the spells that are in D&D, but GURPS does have most of them covered and even has some that I have yet to see in D&D yet.
Which set of rules from GURPS are you using? 4th edition or 3rd edition?
Also a good place to get advice would be the GURPS forums. |
|
|
