Dungeons and Dragons (and other tabletop RPGs)

[Sufimoru]

First and foremost, let me say that I post this here for two reasons: Reason the first: A real D&D forum would tear this to pieces if they paid any attention to it at all. It lacks refinement. Reason B: You guys are crazy enough to come up with some good feedback and suggestions.

After seeing a multitude of "Fighter fixes" that try to make the fighter into the proud swordsman stereotype (Something I detest, since the stereotype exists in twenty other classes already), I've decided to make my own. My view of the fighter is a combative jack of all trades (Jack of all fights?). I want to keep the "blank slate" aspect of the fighter's personality; It's much more versatile than other classes because the fighter doesn't fill a specific story role. His motivation can be whatever he wants it to be, and he can be a ruffian, a knight, a soldier, a mercenary, a fencer, or a general, among other things. The problem is that this means the fighter has to be made "better" while still being very customizable.

My solution was to actually make him more customizable than the original fighter. Boosted his skill points to 4 and I will be adding more skills to his list. His reflex has been bumped up to good in favor of dextrous fighters. And, then there's his added stuff. His HD is still 10 and he lost one bonus fight but I think he'd still challenge a barbarian well enough with this.

************************

Proficencies: Simple, martial, all armors and all shields.
HD: d10
Skills (4 + int)
Balance (Dex), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis) Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), knowledge (history) (Int), knowledge (nobility and royalty) (Int), Listen (Wis), Ride (Dex), Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Spot (Wis), Swim (Str)

Code: Select all

Level   BAB   Fort   Ref   Will   Class Abilities
1    +1     +2   +2    +0   Skilled
2    +2     +3   +3    +0   Bonus Feat
3    +3     +3   +3    +1   Teamwork +1
4    +4     +4   +4    +1   
5    +5     +4   +4    +1   Sharpened Mind
6    +6     +5   +5    +2   Bonus Feat
7    +7     +5   +5    +2   Teamwork +2
8    +8     +6   +6    +2   
9    +9     +6   +6    +3   Deft Parry
10   +10    +7   +7    +3   Bonus Feat
11   +11    +7   +7    +3   Teamwork +3
12   +12    +8   +8    +4   
13   +13    +8   +8    +4   Emergency!
14   +14    +9   +9    +4   Bonus Feat
15   +15    +9   +9    +5   Teamwork +4
16   +16   +10   +10   +5   
17   +17   +10   +10   +5   Intercept
18   +18   +11   +11   +6   Bonus Feat
19   +19   +11   +11   +6   Teamwork +5
20   +20   +12   +12   +6   

Skilled (Ex): At first level, the fighter gains 4 additional skill points, and for each following fighter level he gains 1 additional skill point.
Teamwork (Ex): The fighter works well while fighing with others and quickly adapts to another person's fighting style. Beginning at 3rd level, when flanking, he gains an additional +1 bonus to his attacks. When adjacent to an ally, he gains a +1 bonus to his AC. This bonus increases to +2 at 7th level and again every four levels past that (11th, 15th, 19th).
Sharpened Mind (Ex): By fifth level, the fighter gains an intuitive sense of combat. He may no longer be caught flat-flooted except by a rogue which of equal level or higher. He may also add his intelligent modifier to his initiative (as well as his dexterity).
Deft Parry (Ex): At ninth level, the fighter has seen enough of combat to learn how to keep himself out of danger. Once per round, whenever he is the target of an attack of opportunity, as an immediate action he may make an opposed attack roll. If the fighter's roll meets or exceeds the attacker's roll, the attack of opportunity is negated.
Emergency! (Ex): Once per encounter, the fighter may make a sudden rush, either into the fray or to the aid of an ally. As a free action, his movement speed doubles for one round. If he charges during this round, he gains a +4 bonus to his attack roll (Instead of +2) and deals double damage. If he rushes to an ally, he may provide total cover for one round.
Intercept (Ex): The fighter makes an attack against a moving target (The fighter may move up to twice their movement speed if neccessary). If the attack hits, the target must make a fortitude save with a DC equal to the attack roll. In addition to dealing normal damage, if the target fails the fortitude save, they stop moving and they lose all remaining actions for the round. Intercept may only be used as a readied action.
************************

First edit: Techniques have been removed entirely. Teamwork is the replacement.

Second edit: Added the new skill list, removed half the bonus feats. To be reworked: Emergency, some blank spaces, maybe Teamwork.

[Roffle]

Duhrr... I'm not so sure that this would be a great idea. I like the fighter class just fine, and I frequently multiclass as a fighter. Fighters are useful, tough, and a good class to have in your party. I don't see why you'd want to "improve" upon that. Besides, the fighter's "niche" is mundane, non-magical hack'n'slash combat. If you start giving fighters magic, then how you might as well start calling the class "Eldricht Knight", "Paladin", "Blackguard", "Psionic Warrior" etc...

I'm sorry, but I don't think the fighter needs to be anything but what he's supposed to be, and I haven't seen the fighter class to be limiting one's options in the very least, should one wish to roleplay a ruffian, knight, general etc. At least not at my table. Nor should it at any table.

That being said, I think you have a lot of good ideas in there. Maybe you shouldn't think about improving the Fighter, and instead just make a new class? It's not as if it's not allowed.

[Sufimoru]

To reiterate on why I felt the need to improve the fighter, all the big DnD nerds say fighter is horribly weak past 10th level, because the bonus feats are just not enough to keep up.

I felt a bit of dissent about the way they tried to "fix" the fighter-- By turning it into the Warblade, another existing basic class. That's like trying to "fix," say, a sorceror, by giving them a spellbook.

The psuedo-magic of later techniques was actually inspired by console RPGs, which is notorious for having a fighter type with only the tiniest bit of magic.

But so far it's really striking out on feedback. I may have to consider other techniques.

Oh and, fighter in the RAW isn't limiting. Fighter following the Warblade-style fixes is limited to being a perfection-driven battle artist, which is fine for the knights and generals, but not so fine for the ruffians.

[LE4dGOLEM]

Needs a hell of a lot of drawbacks to balance.

EDIT: Make a new class or a prestige class, instead of trying to mess with existing ones. If Reflex goes up so much, Fort and Will should drop some.

[Sufimoru]

The problem with saving throws is there's only two options: Good (+2 to +12) and bad (+0 to +6). Fighter had one strong and two weak when most classes have two strong (Curious exceptions: Barbarian, paladin, rogue, sorceror, and wizard have also have one but have enough to balance it out, and monk has three and is already overpowered).

[presidentialpaul]

This fighter you are describing sounds a lot like a warrior from WOW, especially the abilities.

I had a fighter only to level 6, due to the -3 level adjustment of being a half dragon, and he was the most impressive person in our group. We also had rangers, rogues, a cleric, and a mage. But in terms of making the fighter better, I was only better because of the +7 st bonus that I had. It allowed for significantly more damage and ability to hit. Whereas people attacked with 2 weapons as rangers, I hit with my glaive for d10 + 11 without his fiery bonuses and such. So maybe the improvement of the fighter is that it shouldn't be human. Humans make a good techinical fighter with their extra feat and skills, but they just aren't a brute. But with going half dragon you get a significant boost to st, and int. Lastly, that 5(?) natural armor is a big help. And a projectile attack that can kill 12 level 6s at once? I rest my case.

Then again, I might be playing with partial noobs, as my sorc/cleric is now the strongest member of the party with a pally, 2 rogues, and 2 rangers, go scrolls!

[LE4dGOLEM]

Party balance: If any of the members of the party could kill all the rest, and survive, your party is not balanced. Conversely, if one member could not kill any of the rest of the party, that character is too weak.

[Belial]

Party balance: If any of the members of the party could kill all the rest, and survive, your party is not balanced. Conversely, if one member could not kill any of the rest of the party, that character is too weak.

Incorrect. D&D is not balanced for PvP. It's balanced for teamed encounters with npcs/monsters, and to insure that each character gets an equal chance to "shine" or essentially be in the spotlight. If you take it from a PvP standpoint, all of the classes are pretty horrendously balanced against each other.

For example, bards are support characters. They *can* hold their own, but most of their power is balanced based on the idea that they'll be helping other characters kick ass.

[Sufimoru]

This fighter you are describing sounds a lot like a warrior from WOW, especially the abilities.

I had a fighter only to level 6, due to the -3 level adjustment of being a half dragon, and he was the most impressive person in our group. We also had rangers, rogues, a cleric, and a mage. But in terms of making the fighter better, I was only better because of the +7 st bonus that I had. It allowed for significantly more damage and ability to hit. Whereas people attacked with 2 weapons as rangers, I hit with my glaive for d10 + 11 without his fiery bonuses and such. So maybe the improvement of the fighter is that it shouldn't be human. Humans make a good techinical fighter with their extra feat and skills, but they just aren't a brute. But with going half dragon you get a significant boost to st, and int. Lastly, that 5(?) natural armor is a big help. And a projectile attack that can kill 12 level 6s at once? I rest my case.

Then again, I might be playing with partial noobs, as my sorc/cleric is now the strongest member of the party with a pally, 2 rogues, and 2 rangers, go scrolls!

This is the other trend I'm noticing: People say that fighters aren't underpowered because they have an obscure race (population-wise) that offers a huge str bonus (bugbear, minotaur, half-dragon, half-dragon minotaur), and because of their huge damage they must be fine.

What bothers me about that logic is that it's completely irrelevant because a barbarian version of the same character would have even more strength.

Anyway, it's interesting that my fighter mimics WoW's fighter, especially considering I've intentionally stayed far, far away from WoW. I've never played it and I've seen it played for all of about 15 seconds.

[Yakk]

You cleaned it up a bit.

Let's go further, and pare it down to a few abilities that give a fighter a clear set of unique abilities, and tighten the fighter's weaknesses:

Interception: A fighter who hits a target in melee combat may choose to intercept. An intercept attempt does half normal damage. An intercepted target must make a fortitude save against (5 + fighter level + fighter wisdom bonus), or be unable to move for the rest of the round (this just prevents movement, the target can still apply dex to AC. Flying targets fall.)

Note: this ability is weak at low levels, but becomes stronger as the fighter gains levels. At L 1 it is a 6+wis save, very easy to beat by even-level creatures -- at L 20 it is up to 25+wis, challenging for even-level creatures.

Interception solves a problem fighters have with opponents that move faster than the fighter, and does it in a very fighteresque way: just pin the target to the ground with a big honking blow.

Parry: 1/battle beginning at level 3 a Fighter may attempt to actively Parry. The fighter makes an attack roll, and the result of the roll can replace the fighter's AC against one attack.

The fighter can do this an addtional time per battle for every 4 additional fighter levels (7, 11, 15 and 19).

Shields grant their shield-bonus to the parry roll (including enhancements to the shield bonus).

Parry may be used against ranged attacks at -5. Parry may be used against ranged touch attacks at -10.

This provides Fighters with an active defense: one's attack modifier tends to be much larger than one's AC.

Guard: 1/battle beginning at L 5, a fighter may take the hit from any attack that passes within 5' of the fighter (start, end or in between). The fighter becomes the target for the attack. This can be done before the to-hit/save/spell resistence rolls are made (in which case the fighter's AC/saves/spell resistence are used), or after (in which case the fighter's AC/saves/spell resistence is ignored).

The fighter can do this an additional time per battle for every 4 additional fighter levels.

Guard is rather key: it means that the Fighter can actually provide protection to the soft chewy casters.

Perfection: At L 20, the fighter's lifetime effort at perfecting her combat abilities results in a +2 innate bonus to all physical stats (dex, str, con).

Every class deserves a capstone.

Code: Select all

L 1: Feat, Intercept
L 2: Feat
L 3: Parry 1/battle
L 4: Feat
L 5: Guard 1/battle
L 6: Feat
L 7: Parry 2/battle
L 8: Feat
L 9: Guard 2/battle
L 10: Feat
L 11: Parry 3/battle
L 12: Feat
L 13: Guard 3/battle
L 14: Feat
L 15: Parry 4/battle
L 16: Feat
L 17: Guard 4/battle
L 18: Feat
L 19: Parry 5/battle
L 20: Feat, Perfection


[LE4dGOLEM]

Lots of stuff

These would still work better as Feats or Prestige class abilities IMO.

[Yakk]

The problem is, the fighter as a meatshield falls apart once you are no longer fighting in 5' wide corridors.

No longer able to protect the more fragile members of the group, unless they are more threatening than everyone else, they are quite rightly ignored by any opponent above animal intelligence.

Meanwhile, the offensive powers of the spellcasters spiral out of control.

The goal of the change I posted was aimed to make a fighter in a medium-to-high-level group important again.

First, they can soak damage intended for the fragile wizard, and they can parry those attacks (or attacks directed strait at them). All of a sudden, adding a fighter to the party makes the wizard far harder to kill.

The intercept ability (which I retweaked) means that highly mobile opponents can be somewhat reliably locked down by a fighter. Instead of the OP's intercept (which encourages the 2-handed mega-damage fighter, and is insanely reliable: doing 60 to 100 damage per attack is quite reasonable for some fighter builds, and a DC of 60 to 100 isn't right), mine gives the creature a chance to prevent it.

D&D 3.5 is an offensively biased game: this is to prevent fights from boiling down to "miss, miss, miss". To be effective, characters should select feats that let you defeat the opponent moreso than feats that defend yourself: because all defenses have a hole.

To justify burning valueable offensive abilities on defenses, those defenses have to be insanely powerful. They become availiable to everyone, and they could cause D&D to tip over into a defensive game instead.

But defensive class abilities are less dangerous. First, it is harder to "combo" them with each other, especially when they are spread over a long leveling track. Second, they don't have to justify giving up an offensive option: the option, in this case, is "get a parry" or "play a different class, and gain completely different abilities".

[Belial]

There's already a feat very similar to "intercept" called "Hold the line". Basically, if someone triggers an AoO while entering your space, and you hit, they don't actually enter your space, and their move is aborted.

When I get home, I'll look it up.

Just in the interest of avoiding duplication of abilities/feats.

That said, for the most part, I enjoy Yakk's version a bit more. It's less cluttered, and the abilities play to the "meat shield" traits a bit better. I might incorporate some of Sufimoru's teamwork bonuses in place of a few of the feats, though, for two reasons:

1) The number of feats is kindof ridiculous considering all the new abilities.

2) Flanking bonuses discourage enemies from running past the fighter to get at the tasty wizards, as doing so puts them in a perfect position to be flanked.

[Vandole]

Errr... OP's Intercept based the DC on the attack roll, not the damage roll. Though with their high BAB and str that would be a pretty big save to make.

This class seems interesting. I'm not in high level adventures very much though so I don't have a lot of experience with class misbalance/lack of usefulness.

[Belial]

There's already a feat very similar to "intercept" called "Hold the line". Basically, if someone triggers an AoO while entering your space, and you hit, they don't actually enter your space, and their move is aborted.

Nevermind, Hold the Line only works against charging opponents.

Carry on.

[Roffle]

Well, let's all remember the beauty of D&D here... The Dungeon Master. That's the guy who can tweak the rules, so that everyone has fun playing the class they love.

A fighter is only weak or faulty if your DM is. If a party has a fighter, you don't constantly throw mobs at them that the fighter can't handle (Rust Monster, melee damage immune mobs, flying ranged attackers) or play unintelligent mobs as if they would always go for the wizard first. ÃŽt's always important to tweak your campaing to make everyone feel included, important, and amused.

WTB proper DM?

That being said, I never play fighters into their twenties, but they are my favorite class for multiclassing. Give a fighter plate and a good two-hander, and watch him go at it... Never really noticed them being weak at later levels. Then again, I don't know anyone who even wants to be a mundane slashfest at high levels.

[Jesse]

See, I love going full into fighter; bastard sword and a tower shield satisfies me no end. I enjoy being the meat and potatoes of the party, being the defender while the magic boys unleash their badassery.

That said, I also play lawful good.

[Yakk]

*grin*, you if you think that is too many feats, you should see my other fighter:

Code: Select all

L 1: Stance Feat, 2 Stances
L 2: Stance Feat
L 3: 3rd Stance (Copy with 1 Stance Feat changed)
L 4: Stance Feat
L 5: Quick Change 1/day
L 6: Stance Feat
L 7: 4th Stance (Copy with 2 Stance Feats changed)
L 8: Stance Feat
L 9: Quick Change 2/day
L 10: Stance Feat
L 11: 5th Stance (Copy with 3 Stance Feats changed)
L 12: Stance Feat
L 13: Quick Change 3/day
L 14: Stance Feat
L 15: 6th Stance (Copy with 4 Stance Feats changed)
L 16: Stance Feat
L 17: Quick Change 5/day
L 18: Stance Feat
L 19: Quick Change 1/battle
L 20: Stance Feat


Stance:
A Stance is a collection of Feats. A fighter can have one Stance active at any one time. Feats in non-active Stances are not availiable. Bonus feats from other sources do not go into Stances: only feats gained from Fighter levels.

Changing stances is a Standard Action. Quick Change is the ability to change Stance as a Free Action a limited number of times per day (or battle).

Stances can only contain Fighter Bonus Feats. At level 1, and every even level, the Fighter gains 1 feat in every stance the fighter has. The added feat can be a different one in different stances.

When a Fighter gains a new stance, they first copy an existing stance, then change a fixed number of feats. (Exactly one half of the feats in the new stance are different.)

Every level, a Fighter can take one Feat in one existing Stance, and change it to a different Fighter Bonus Feat. This is done before you gain a new stance.

Note: When creating advanced level characters, only the most recently gained Stance need be built by copying it from an existing stance, and then changing one feat each level. All previous Stances can be as different or as similar as the Fighter wants.

...
A 1st level Stance Fighter Human has:
2 Normal Feats
2 Stances, each with 1 Feat.

Ie, not that hard to build.

A 20th level Stance Fighter Human has:
8 Normal Feats
6 Stances, each with 11 Stance Feats from the Fighter Bonus Feat list (with as little overlap as the Fighter wants)
1 Quick Stance change per battle.
5 additional Quick Stance changes per day.

This creates a character who can be a grand master of multiple combat forms, and switch between them at need. It is a more "pure" recreation of the Fighter, in that it leaves the fighter class flavourless.

Typically, the Fighter would make multiple builds for different opponents and situations. As the Fighter gains more and more Quick Changes, the Fighter can make stances that are designed to "flow into" each other.

It doesn't, however, deal with any of the fundamental weaknesses of the Fighter class. (which are really game balance problems with the spellcasters more than weaknesses of the Fighter, really).

[Miles Invictus]

Well, let's all remember the beauty of D&D here... The Dungeon Master. That's the guy who can tweak the rules, so that everyone has fun playing the class they love.

A fighter is only weak or faulty if your DM is. If a party has a fighter, you don't constantly throw mobs at them that the fighter can't handle (Rust Monster, melee damage immune mobs, flying ranged attackers) or play unintelligent mobs as if they would always go for the wizard first. ÃŽt's always important to tweak your campaing to make everyone feel included, important, and amused.

While technically true, if the only way the Fighter can contribute is with the DM's help, the Fighter needs to be tweaked.

To use an admittedly extreme example: Let's say that your adventuring party consists of a cleric, a rogue, a wizard...and a commoner. Should the DM tailor encounters so that the commoner can feel important? How can he do this and still challenge the other players? Seems like it'd be better to fix the flawed class, rather than the rest of D&D.

Back to the Fighter...off the top of my head, I can think of a few major issues:
1. He can't do anything but fight. He's got a piss-poor set of class skills and only two skill points per level.
2. There are plenty of other martial classes with combat abilities that are better than feats. You're going to need some damn good feats to compete with, say, the Knight's ability to turn adjacent squares into difficult terrain, or the Duskblade's ungodly number of spells per day.
3. Melee Fighters (like most melee classes) can be effectively countered by a number of high-level spells -- teleport, flight, etc. Meanwhile, ranged Fighters can't deliver damage fast enough to kill their target in a meaningful amount of time, and they also have counters -- invisibility, wind wall, and so on.

My personal "quick-and-dirty" tweak is to give Fighters six skill points per level, a heap of fairly obvious class skills -- Listen, Spot, Appraise, Use Magic Device, Profession, Knowledge (History, Nobility, Local, Geography), Diplomacy, Gather Information -- and expand the list of bonus feats. It really only solves the first problem, but it has the advantage of being easy to drop into a game, as there are no new mechanics to introduce.

Yakk: I think I've seen that one. GitP boards, right?

[presidentialpaul]

I like the stance idea. I find when I play RPGs that people just attack and run around. They don't use the skills that make the character. I mean, our rogues forget that they can use sneak attack, sigh. But with stances it might make people see the more options they have available to them.

On adding skill points, I like it. My half dragon had a ton cause he had an entirely too high Int. But having skills was very useful. Granted I tended to put them in stealth abilities (green dragon) and so I could ambush with the rogues/rangers.

I guess I will have to talk to my GM next chance to try to incorporate some of these ideas. I am a fan of GURPS because it is skill with a weapon and then you can create techniques off of it, if you are creative.

[Sufimoru]

Instead of the OP's intercept (which encourages the 2-handed mega-damage fighter, and is insanely reliable: doing 60 to 100 damage per attack is quite reasonable for some fighter builds, and a DC of 60 to 100 isn't right), mine gives the creature a chance to prevent it.

As was pointed out, the DC was based on the attack roll.

While I see now that it is a little extreme, the point was to make it very reliable. I had in mind at the time the average enemy only not stopping on a twenty, but I think an average con good fort monster should be getting stopped about four out of five times.

[Yakk]

Attack roll is about:
10+Level+Stat+Enhancement+Other
with a small bias upwards and extra varience.

In comparison, a spell tends to be about:
10+Level/2+Stat+Spec.

So at Level 20, using a +5 weapon, the difference becomes about 14 over a spell.

+14 over a spell is rather high. In addition, strength is easier to buff than casting stats, and boosts to-hit are easier to get than boosts to spell DCs.

Note in my varient, we had 5+level+wis as the save. This reduces the edge down to +4 over a spell, and requires the use of a secondary stat (wis) instead of a primary stat (strength).

A large problem in D&D is keeping track of the magnitude and difference between modifiers. Because D&D is an affine game, it is really easy for the game to break down if you just throw in a few scaling numbers at the engine.

You can see this happening in D&D Online: they added too many numbers that scaled with the level of the character, and the result was a game that broke down pretty badly.

Ie, if you take D&D, and double everyone's BaB (but give them extra attacks every 10 instead of every 5 BaB), and double all modifiers to your BaB (so power attack is -2 to hit for +1 to damage by default), then you end up with a very different game.

Similarly, saves where originally designed to scale with 1/2 of your character's level. Making abilities whose DC scales with your character's level is a generally bad thing(tm).

[Nyarlathotep]

Mostly so I can stop derailing the hobby thread.

So yes. DnD. Whatever edition. I like 3.5 for the ridiculous stunts you can pull off with it, but 2e has a special place in my heart due to wildmages and fighters that didn't suck.

I played white wolf but decided it was too whiny. Still wish to try Call of Cthulhu and Nobilis.

Paranoia is AMAZING AND WINFUL.

Sadly... I WAS going to play a dinosaur obsessed druid with raptor animal companions. who shapechanged into a raptor.

Hahah, I actually played that character in an FR game. Druid of Ubtao, whose holy animals are all dinosaurs. Raptor Companion, and depending on the type of combat he would either wildshape a raptor, or ride the raptor into combat.

When you have *all* the mounted combat feats, and a lance, a raptor makes a really *nasty* mount.

Oddly, this character is going to be for an (ostensibly) FR game. DM asked for Expedition to the Demonweb Pits for his birfday.

Our games tend to have very wanked-out min-maxed characters in them. I don't think I've yet played a character without a prestige class. Likely a bad thing but it can be a lot of fun.

*e* Query! Were you actually using the real rules for dinosaurs and thus using a Dinchysorus (Spelling. argh.) or a Utahraptor? or were you just going for the Generic Jurassic Park Raptor Which Is Not In Fact A Velociraptor?

[Belial]

The deinonychus.

Which, amusingly, by the statistics they give it, is closer to a utahraptor.

I played white wolf but decided it was too whiny.

Sigh. You were playing vampire, weren't you?

[bbctol]

GURPS is very versatile, but puts a lot of strain on a GM. I still like it, though, because, um... I'm a geek.

[Nyarlathotep]

The deinonychus.

Which, amusingly, by the statistics they give it, is closer to a utahraptor.

Haha, paleobiology~

I played white wolf but decided it was too whiny.

Sigh. You were playing vampire, weren't you?

I only played in the vampire games; however, I sat in on a HUGE LONG RUNNING Werewolf game. Several exceedingly long sessions, in fact. Also too whiny. Also, a lot of "LOL MY PWER LEVEL IS OVER 9,000!!!" from various NPCs. I hate that.

I was VERY INTERESTED in the Demon: the Fallen game, but it never got off the ground I was going to be a number-obsessed Fiend, working as a computer programmer.

[Belial]

I only played in the vampire games; however, I sat in on a HUGE LONG RUNNING Werewolf game. Several exceedingly long sessions, in fact. Also too whiny. Also, a lot of "LOL MY PWER LEVEL IS OVER 9,000!!!" from various NPCs. I hate that.

In both cases, they were doing it wrong.

White wolf RPGs are *very* different from D&D, in that they made no effort to "idiot-proof" them. Their operating philosophy, at least up until the most recent edition (which I loathe) seemed to be "We're going to give you some things. If you're not an idiot, you can make a really good game out of these things we're going to give you. If you want to min-max, powergame, or create wankfests of angst and juvenile wish-fulfillment dramas, there's nothing in the system to stop you. But don't come crying to *us* when your game is fucking *awful*. That's your fault. For being an idiot, and for playing with idiots."

Vampire, being the first-released and most popular of their games, and the game most prone to angsty whinyness, saw a lot of people running really, incredibly terrible games.

It was kindof a refreshing change from D&D, though, which goes to such great lengths to file all the sharp edges off of things and doesn't succeed, to see a game which made no efforts to do so, and just trusts the players and storytellers to be mature with it.

In any case, Demon had really interesting material, but unlike Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage, I've never seen a Demon game run *well*.

But that's probably because it was so short lived.

[Alisto]

I love RPGs.

I can't stand to be in the same room with most of the people who also enjoy RPGs.

I have not played a game in awhile.

[Nyarlathotep]

I only played in the vampire games; however, I sat in on a HUGE LONG RUNNING Werewolf game. Several exceedingly long sessions, in fact. Also too whiny. Also, a lot of "LOL MY PWER LEVEL IS OVER 9,000!!!" from various NPCs. I hate that.

In both cases, they were doing it wrong.

White wolf RPGs are *very* different from D&D, in that they made no effort to "idiot-proof" them. Their operating philosophy, at least up until the most recent edition (which I loathe) seemed to be "We're going to give you some things. If you're not an idiot, you can make a really good game out of these things we're going to give you. If you want to min-max, powergame, or create wankfests of angst and juvenile wish-fulfillment dramas, there's nothing in the system to stop you. But don't come crying to *us* when your game is fucking *awful*. That's your fault. For being an idiot, and for playing with idiots."

I think our storyteller's issue was that he liked to overwhelm us with powerful characters and really hammer home the fact that we were the bottom of the barrel. We, as either 1st generation vampires or... whatever the hell the lowest-tier Werewolves were (as I said, I didn't play), kept meeting up with things like 4th generation vampires or ridiculously powerful black spiral dancers - or hell, in one game my Brujah got ATTACKED by Black Spiral Dancers (oooh, cross-systeming!) (I actually won that fight. Mostly becuase of Celerity and Potence and rolling VERY well. I hit the thing once and it was so surprised that a mere vamp could hit that hard that it ran away XD)

I would also get penalized for asking questions. A lot. Particularly in my first Vampire game when I didn't know enough about the world or the system.

Ugh, and I loved my first Vamp character. Sabbat with not a care in the world about humanity. She almost took Wash. DC, but I wasn't quite clever enough. That game WAS fun becuase I got to plot and scheme, though I was bad at it since as I said, first Vamp game... and also, I, at least, was non-angsty. Other PCs were! I was not! I liked being a bloodsucking horror!

[Owijad]

Werewolf and VTM have the most interesting character creation I've ever seen, and Paranoia was the most fun to play. What i like most about Paranoia is it's flexibility. If you want a long campaign, you can play Straight, or you're just looking for something to do for a few hours, you can go Zap.

[Nyarlathotep]

Werewolf and VTM have the most interesting character creation I've ever seen, and Paranoia was the most fun to play. What i like most about Paranoia is it's flexibility. If you want a long campaign, you can play Straight, or you're just looking for something to do for a few hours, you can go Zap.

Agreed. I do love the White Wolf character creation system, it allows for very well-customized characters that do EXACTLY what you want them to do.

And Paranoia is just plain FUN. I usually end up in Classic games with a TOUCH of Zap, which have just the right balance of lulz and seriousness to be fun. Most of my characters are chronically afraid of scrub-bots.

[Belial]

Nyarl: Yeah, it sounds like you don't dislike werewolf and vampire, so much as you just had a pretty bad storyteller for those games.

With all games, but especially with old WoD games, the quality of the game is really, *heavily* reliant on the quality of your group.

Some of the best and some of the worst games I've ever played were Werewolf.

Meanwhile, D&D continues to be consistently...adequate.

We, as either 1st generation vampires or... whatever the hell the lowest-tier Werewolves were (as I said, I didn't play)

Cliaths.

[Nyarlathotep]

Nyarl: Yeah, it sounds like you don't dislike werewolf and vampire, so much as you just had a pretty bad storyteller for those games.

With all games, but especially with old WoD games, the quality of the game is really, *heavily* reliant on the quality of your group.

Some of the best and some of the worst games I've ever played were Werewolf.

Meanwhile, D&D continues to be consistently...adequate.

We, as either 1st generation vampires or... whatever the hell the lowest-tier Werewolves were (as I said, I didn't play)

Cliaths.

lol, and I meant 13th generation. LOWER IS BETTER.

Yeah, I think it really is that I like the system but... never have had the chance to have a good storyteller.

DnD... I've had some amazing games of DnD, actually, mostly in the cases when my friends actually bothered to get their heads out of the "we just bought this AWESOME sourcebook!" trap and into the roleplay aspect of things. One of my favourite characters in this regard was probably my mechanically worst character ever - we were playtesting 3.5 Tome of Magic, thus, I was a Truenamer.

... second favourite was when I was playing a psion shaper who tried to convince everyone that he was a bard. Totally a bard. Just ignore that astral construct over there, clearly, I am a bard.

[ArchangelShrike]

I'd love to play a tabletop RPG, except for the fact I have no idea where people gather to play around my area. And I've now stucked myself to xkcd fora. Maybe a online game one day?

[Berge]

I've only played D&D so far, and I really enjoy it. But most of my games tend to be the "kick in the door" style of campaign, which is unfortunate. Also, I seem to always end up playing a psion, which pisses off the DM or other players, since I exploit there overpoweredness mercilessly.

This summer though I plan to actually play a "real" campagin, with RP'ing and reduced min/maxing mentality.

[Nyarlathotep]

I've only played D&D so far, and I really enjoy it. But most of my games tend to be the "kick in the door" style of campaign, which is unfortunate. Also, I seem to always end up playing a psion, which pisses off the DM or other players, since I exploit there overpoweredness mercilessly.

This summer though I plan to actually play a "real" campagin, with RP'ing and reduced min/maxing mentality.

urrghhh. 3.5 psionics =/= overpowered. They're LESS POWERFUL than Clerics, Druids, and Wizards. I can almost guarantee. that I can build a Druid or Cleric using only the PHB that can DESTROY 90% of all psionics builds.

... but that's a rant for the WOTC message boards.

*e* And ok, the druid would need the monster manual so I could wildshape into something horrific. But I'd only need the standard one.

*e2* Thanks Mad Giraffe. It's one of the few that Firefox Spellcheck doesn't seem to catch properly...

[Mad Giraffe]

garentee(AGH. SPELLING?!)

Guarantee.

I myself only ever once had the priviledge of playing DnD, which is the only traditional RPG I ever played.

And that was a 'tryout' package with a few friends.

But I can't get those friends to do a real game, nor can I find any other, living in my vincity.

Really saddening, for I'd love to try it all out for once.

Because PbP hasn't been working out much for me, just isn't the same. 'twas fun though, the sparce games I played.

[Berge]

Oh, and I sympathize with

I love RPGs.

I can't stand to be in the same room with most of the people who also enjoy RPGs.

With a few notable exceptions. I don't consider myself the "typical" role-player (of which I know many sadly), so when we're playing some common space here at the university, and a non player walks in while two people are in the midst of a (loud) heated debate about tumbling, or a dragon's breath weapon, or their 8th level feats, I try to shrink into the carpet.

...Hide in plain regrettably sums up my attempts accurately.

[Nyarlathotep]

How do you define "typical"? Most roleplayers I know are fairly ordinary, if somewhat geeky, people outside the hobby. Well... ok, if you consider a couple of Godzilla / Babylon 5 / Firefly fanatics "ordinary".

*e* To me this sounds like the steryotype of the fat, stupid, socially inept RPer... whom luckily I have had very little contact with.

[Alisto]

Fat, no. Stupid, no. Socially inept? Absolutely.

I used to hang out at a comic shop pretty frequently. I was there to pick up comic books in my bin, playing in weekly Magic tournaments, and later playing in weekly HeroClix tournaments. I even took part in a couple of RPG sessions (Alternity and Cthulu).

The people who I liked, I really liked. But there was a large number of people who were just... ugh. Examples:

-7 days after the first LotR movie came out, a group of people were arguing over who was cooler for having seen the movie more times. The winner was a heavy woman in a trenchcoat. "Well I've seen it seven times and I'm going to see it again tonight!" As great as the film was, that's 24 hours of your life and the movie has only been out for a week.

-The day after the first Spider-Man film came out, a late-20's or early 30's guy made the comment, "It was better than sex!" Brian, a very cool guy who worked at the store replied, "You need to have a frame of reference to say that."
"Hey, I'm a proud virgin."
"...that was my point."
*ten minute long rant about how he doesn't understand why sex is such a big deal and it's just for reproduction and blah blah blah*

-A number of people whom I've met who are socially inept, almost proud of this ineptness, and obsessive over things like RPGs and DragonballZ. I'm talking about people who want to wear cloaks to every session or, my personal favorite, a guy who managed to make every character from any game setting into a ninja.

I know there are fun people who enjoy RPGs. Sadly, most of my experiences have been with people who I have no desire to sit next to on a bus, let alone invite to my home and hang out with on a regular basis.