What's wrong with D20 systems is....

jedion357's picture
jedion357
March 19, 2013 - 7:02am
What's wrong with D20 systems is...

supply your own reason and explain.
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!
Comments:

jedion357's picture
jedion357
March 19, 2013 - 7:29am
I could pick on a few things but I think the number one thing is combat.

at 1st level a fighter takes up a long sword and does X ammount of damage IIRC its 1d8, He faces a 1 hit dice creature and he's able to do 50% or more of that creature's hit points in one good blow and even 100% if he's weilding a weapon with does 1d10

at 10th level he's still using a long sword (though we may presume its been upgraded to a magic one) You would think our 10th level fighter is one bad ass but he whacks a 10 Hit dice creature for only a very tiny % of its total hit points requiring numerous hits to whittle him down.

The problem here is that he has not kept pace in damage expressions compared to say a wizard who should be dropping some nukes at this point. His ability to deal damage has not kept pace with the monsters they face- its going to be a piss all long combat whacking away at a 10 hit dice monster and that situation gets compounded when there is damage reduction and immunity to normal weapons.

Thus we get situations where the whole D&D 3.5 session devolves to one endless round of what I call whack-a-mole. The whole session is eaten up with this activity. I could whine about other features of the game but if it wasn't for this one fault in the game I would still be playing with my regular local group. I always come back to the 1/2 hour session of Star Frontiers that we played while waiting for the 3.5 DM to show up after attending the dance classes his wife made him attend: in 1/2 hour we had 2 combats and some exploration and a wee bit of role play and that was fun but then the fun ended when the D&D began and we had just one combat for 3 hours. And the DM would ask if everyone had fun but would specifically look at me and i alway gave a non commital answer.

To be fair edition 4.0 introduced a mooks or minion rule where if the horde of creatures coming at you were minions they dropped with one hit. However, minions usually came with a boss. 4.0 was marginally better than 3.5 and characters had WoW and EQ like powers that let them juice for more damage in combat.

Critical hits were of little utility in shortening a combat (at least with our house rules it was simply max damage that could normally happen)
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

Malcadon's picture
Malcadon
March 19, 2013 - 9:48am
With the stagnate damage capacity, I blame early D&D rules for not keeping up with Chainmail's Fantasy Combat rules. Had it followed that model, D&D Fighters would have been able to attack rank-and-file monsters (orcs, zombies, vermin, etc.) equal to their level, and cut-down large monsters (dragons, giants, etc.) with the amount of damage dice equal to their level. (Magic-users would attack with half the levels of a Fighter, and Clerics at 2/3rds) That would really speed-up combat at higher levels, and make high-level Fighters real bad-asses!

I agree with you on stagnating damage capacity at higher levels, as well as static AC values. Characters who gain levels should do more damage, as well as become better at defending without the need for piling on magic defense bonuses. After all, I play sword & sorcery themed adventures, and I hate how the system make players feel that the are *entitled* to get magical junk to become better characters! Heroes should be powerful by their own might (and the wits of their players), not some fancy toys! When I used the d20 system, I would use the Conan RPG, as it allows for Dodge/Parry bonuses, and some other stuff (specially the spell system) that suites my gaming milieu. Nowadays, I usually play with less complicated systems.

My big gripe with the d20 system is how the game grinds on after so many levels. PCs and monsters accumulate so many skills, feats, special attacks/abilities and so on. Writing-up NPCs and custom monsters was a major chore. When I write an adventure, I want to focus on writing the scenario, not stating every little thing - not just NPCs and unique monsters, but all the doors, traps, walls, etc! Much like the Basic/Expert D&D rulebooks, I just what to be able to pull everything out my ass and forget about it!

Oh yeah, the change from v3 to v3.5 skill lists (and uses) was a major step backwards! I remember the focuses of 3e's creation was to keep things simple and open-ended for greater customization (see Rule 0), but for every redundant skull removed, they added three more redundant skills, as well as pad out the feat list with what I like to call "fluffer-feats". A "fluffer-feat" is any feat that boost two skills by +2. Feats should be used to allow characters to do things out of the ordinary - not pad-out a character's normal abilities! Skills should be a little broad (much like when Pathfinder condensed many of them to make a shorter list), and skills like Preform and Knowledge should note examples of specialties and not cast them in stone. And the whole point of this is that 3.5 was more systematic then 3.0, and needlessly so!

jedion357's picture
jedion357
March 19, 2013 - 10:32am
Thanks Malcadon I had not considered the feats in the way you discribed, [pauses to add something else to the list of things he does not like about 3.5]

I think a fantasy system should allow for minions who get mowed down and boss monsters that challenge the paryt but the whole game should not devolve to just static combat. Scenes from LotRs where the warg riders are sweeping down on the refugee column and the riders of Rohan are going out to meet them head on and Legolas is there doing the one shot one warg goes down that is pretty damn cool but that would never happen in D&D and a lot of other systems, Helm's Deep is being stromed by the Orcs and the heroes are taking out one orc with one hit and moving on- again very cool and would never happen in most RPG rule sets. Gandolf's battle with the Balrog while falling into the depths of Moria or the battle with the cave troll in Moria perhaps. but swarms of enemies being mowed down- just not possible with most rule systems IMO the the introduction of Mooks or Minion rules has been a step to redress this yet this new type of rule feels wrong in that it does not matter how much damage you are doing the just go down with a hit. I'd rather see it where the swarm minions have 1 hit dice and a high level fighter would have to roll poorly to not knock one down with one hit ie his rolled damage was very low. then you'd get those situations where the heroes hold the gates of a city or keep agains swarms of orcs and the general who is a wyvern riding wraith has to intervene to turn the tide for his army. Now you have a heroic combat where the orcs were stopped cold and the heroes faced down the evil general to save the city.
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
March 19, 2013 - 12:26pm
I like d20...for D&D. I was never much into AD&D (I have a fair amount of the 1e stuff but never played any newer editions).

Mentzer Companion & Master boxed sets addressed additional damages though (specifically Weapon Mastery in the latter books). Stll not on par with a high level MU, but a far cry better than 1d8+whatever STR and magic bonuses.

Also, even in Moldvay B/X the intelligent swords had a (slim) chance of an extraordinary power that deals four times damage (this was also carried over into Mentzer). d8+whatever times four is pretty good stuff...but it isnt a go-to thing that is readily available. Both Moldvay and Mentzer sets offered multiple attacks at higher levels.
I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

TerlObar's picture
TerlObar
March 19, 2013 - 12:37pm
Having never played any version of D&D beyond the red box basic set back in the early eighties and only having read the 2e rules, I don't have much experience to comment on.  But I've heard these gripes in other places than here and can say that I think I'm glad I never got into in a game with "levels".  I did play a little MERP and had kind of the same feelings although that was 20+ years ago now and my recollection is dim.  I was totaly spolied by RuneQuest and Chaosium's Basic Role-playing System (or at least the flavor I played).  Humans had typically 12-20 hit points divided among hit locations and a single good solid hit to the right place to drop a foe.  A well armored opponent could take a few hits to bring down but as your character got better you eventually gained the ability to make multiple attacks per round (once your skill exceeded 100% you could split it into two attacks).  That combined with an aimed blow mechanic allowing you to target critical body parts make an expererience fighter quite deadly.
Ad Astra Per Ardua!
Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site
Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine
Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine

Gilbert's picture
Gilbert
March 19, 2013 - 3:42pm
  I didn't care for the out of the box combat rules for D&D very much for the same reasons. Spending an evening to resolve a battle was not a fun thing to do. There were some changes I made to the combat system before the near worthless SDC(structural damage capacity) came into play for many RPG games. I just went with for each hit the ar/ac (armor rating/ class) went down one unless the minimum roll was made like 4 or less in D&D which the player probably hit themselvesInnocent, this also reflected the need for new or repairs to armor. Furthermore, for the hit dice part, the rules in 1e has a rule for players to take out the number of hit die per level of the player. 
  Also, if there is a need for more damage a rule can be made for each level of player to get +1 damage or every 5 or ten levels get a double damage then triple damage at tenth or fifteenth and so on. There are tons of ways around a long drug out battle in an RPG.
  When it comes to the mass battles, you are on your own. There is not much to help mass battles unless you go with the taking out x number of orcs per level, however, the player will still not get out unscathed.
   How the battles play out is based purely on how creative the GM/Ref is for the game with how observant he /she is on the pace of the battles/scenarios. The hardest part of being the one in charge of the game is keeping it smooth and interesting. However, some players really do like th elong dragged out battles because it makes the loot worth more even if most of it ends up being mundane to them.  
  I like to get feed back from my players on how the different parts went in the session so I can adjust as things go along to keep the fun in the game. The hard part is having a player's character go down or lose their character to death or something. However, here again it is left to the creativity of the DM/Ref.
   If there were issues, I will make a new rule/action and let the players review it before it is used and maybe do some play testing to see if it balanced or overpowered.
  Many of the later edition of some games I thought were good have become over complicated. I stopped with D&D 2e with distaste for the 3e and I do not care for the 2e much either. Anything after that is not wanted.

  @ jedion357 The Dm was looking at you because he respected your opion and maybe a creative comment was expected but I do not know the person that was DMing and not what kind of person he was, or if you were the newbie to the game/session.

Malcadon's picture
Malcadon
March 19, 2013 - 8:16pm
I would play-test a game "out of box", but I would quickly house-rule the system.

With d20, I tried to make it as simple as possible, while incorporating the best elements from the Conan RPG and Pathfinder. Even so, the game was still bulky, and I dropped it all together. I would list how different the game played, but that would be a long post to write. Although, the Conan rules make the game badass! So much so, I have been trying to incorporate some of the rules into my classic D&D games.

With magic weapons, I never seen the +X to damage as being all that useful. So years ago, I opted to have each +1 to-hit also add a damage die! So a +1 Sword: +3 vs Dragons would do 2-16 points of damage in general, or 4-32 points to dragons. Because I like to make magic items vary rare and highly unusual, any magic items found would be intelligent to some degree (or at least treated as such) and would likely impose a mutation or behavior on the user. Even something as mundane as a +1 ring of protection could cause the wearer to become paranoid, a nudest, a homosexual (or straight if already gay) or something else equally weird. The point is that magic items are powerful, can hold additional powers, and to use them, you have to pay a strange price! Plus, these changes can added a lot to the role-playing.

Ascent's picture
Ascent
March 19, 2013 - 8:41pm
The question is what's good about 3E+? I struggle with that question quite a bit. I like the bleeding and conditions rules of 4E. I like the unified mechanics, such as spell/abilities mechanics of 4E, the use of d20 to resolve all actions, and the standardized XP level chart and ability bonuses. That's about it. AD&D 2E and earlier were better because they were less work. (I don't call copying some stats from the ability charts "work". Math, that's work. There is nothing in 3E+ that is untouched by math, except alignment.)
View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write.
"It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi
"That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi
Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild)

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
March 19, 2013 - 11:20pm
Ascent wrote:
The question is what's good about 3E+?

I have a feeling that list will be as short as "What's good about Zebulon's Guide?" Wink
I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

jedion357's picture
jedion357
March 20, 2013 - 4:16am
Gilbert wrote:

  @ jedion357 The Dm was looking at you because he respected your opion and maybe a creative comment was expected but I do not know the person that was DMing and not what kind of person he was, or if you were the newbie to the game/session.


That's quite possible. We were like oil and water. He has dry cutting sense of humor with a dash of out in left field to it. Not the monty python kind of left field but the type that just leaves you wondering "Should I be angry with that comment, I should be angry with that comment shouldn't I?" but the time to address the comment has slid by because you had spent too much time thinking about what was said and how to respond to it. We ended up using another player as a communication conduit which was not good I admit but the DM was Peter's life long friend not mine so he did give me some insights to him that helped. In the end the DM in question who had gone hog wild because he was an adult at the time 3e/3.5 hit had bought thoughsands (not sure how much but apparently two of the friends in that group were north of $1500 and one was reputed to be in the neighborhood of $3000 worth of D&D materials for 3.5 edition- those were Peter's estimatess) felt he had too much invested in 3.5 to ever change editions.

I can understand that to a certain degree but when the game is dragging and un-fun then what? We have to play this because someone foolishly spent too much money on it and they have to actually play every single module they ever bought to justify having spent the money? (Despite having gone hog wild with his money over D&D he was actually extremely frugal with his money and I came to realize that it was massively important to him to justify having spent all that money)

I was the new guy to the group and began after a suitible period of time pointing out that WOW the combat takes all night long and I was running afoul of the rules because i was trying to have a character concept and just play that not play the rules for maximum advantage. And this is where some of the cutting comments came in.

I just could not relate to him on a number of levels, even learning what I learned about him from Peter, while it helped me to have some sympathy for him as a person we were just oil and water and not going to be all that close of friends. I was usually advocating we try something new or different (even just a game of Risk one night) and this was a threat to him because he was on a mission to play every piece of 3.5 material he had ever bought.
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

jedion357's picture
jedion357
March 20, 2013 - 4:20am
Shadow Shack wrote:
Ascent wrote:
The question is what's good about 3E+?

I have a feeling that list will be as short as "What's good about Zebulon's Guide?" Wink


This is why I phrased the title of the thread the way I did, I figured that anyone wanting to discuss whats good in.... could start a thread for that. So far no takers.
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
March 20, 2013 - 12:26pm
If you're looking for "what's good about d20" see my comments about weapon mastery and multiple attacks via D&D boxed sets. I honestly don't recall if there is anything comparable in AD&D (although I seem to recall a multiple attack sequence wth whacky fractions of 3/2 and 5/3 in 1e).
I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

jedion357's picture
jedion357
March 20, 2013 - 1:14pm
Shadow Shack wrote:
If you're looking for "what's good about d20" see my comments about weapon mastery and multiple attacks via D&D boxed sets. I honestly don't recall if there is anything comparable in AD&D (although I seem to recall a multiple attack sequence wth whacky fractions of 3/2 and 5/3 in 1e).


I dont believe that I'm actually looking for what good in D20 systems. I gave up about 1.5 years ago. That's not to say I wouldn't play them with friends I'm just not motivated to get into a campaign or invest too much energy into them.

Maybe the new 5th edition will really wow the pants off me but somehow I dont think so. It's entirely likely that I will be influenced by what I read on the web when it comes out and since the human condition has a base line of gripe first, I expect to not have my interest peeked enough to drop the cash.
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

Ascent's picture
Ascent
March 20, 2013 - 1:20pm
I liked the "whacky fractions". They were fun. And yet somehow the mathophiles of 3e+ seem to say (from my experience) that fractions are too simulationist and time consuming. I personally don't recall that when playing. Simulationist, yes (Isn't 3E all about simulation? Sheesh.) Time consuming, no. First, it's easy. What's difficult about writing down a number that has already been worked out for you? Where simulation is fun and easy, simulation should be chosen over abstraction. Second, in theory, fighters seem to spend more time working out multiple turns at a time than magic users, making magic user feel left out. But in reality, magic users spend more time looking crud up in the books, so the time actually evens out. I remember that very much. If magic users had as many attacks per turn as a fighter, they would bog down the game with looking stuff up.

Then there's the fact that back in the 80's, combat rounds were brief and you could get on with the adventure, whereas these days, you could spend 5 sessions working out a single combat. So really, one should ask which mechanic is part of the faster, better system, eh?
View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write.
"It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi
"That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi
Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild)

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
March 21, 2013 - 11:38am
In a nutshell, weapon mastery permits additional damage (and in the case of thrown/missile weapons, range) as the skill increases. Bonuses include defensive and special effects. A sword, for example, at basic mastery allows the standard d8 damage. At "skilled" mastery that goes up to 1d12 along with a -2AC bonus versus one opponent along with deflect and disarm options. By "expert" you're inflicting 2d8 damage, you can apply the AC bonus to 2 attackers, and the deflect/disarm bonuses increase...and now you can throw the sword up to 10 feet. "Master" allows even more damage at 2d8+4 and now you may use the sword against "secondary target types" (in ths case opponents using missile weapons instead of hand weapons) to a greater degree (read: more damage than d8), and the defensive bonus increases to -3 AC versus up to 3 opponents...and the usual increases in disarm/deflect. By Grand Master you're inflicting even more damage (both against primary and secondary), you can throw it farther, and have better defensive bonuses against even more opponents along with even better disarm/deflect options.

And that's before figuring in STR and magic bonuses...not to mention additional attacks. The system works for any level character, from 1 to 36 that begins with the basic Red Box, you don't have to wait for a certain level to begin mastery. 
I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
March 21, 2013 - 12:38pm
Here's a thought: Some folks are not content with the way D&D does not allow more damage at higher levels resulting in long drawn out battles.

Star Frontiers also does not allow for damage and has long drawn out battles albeit starting at level 1. Seriously, when any character with an above average stamina has a fair chance at surviving a point blank burst from a machine gun with no armor...I have a difficult time griping about the damage I can't dole out in D&D at higher levels.
I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

rattraveller's picture
rattraveller
March 22, 2013 - 2:08pm
Wild Question? Isn't the extended combat at higher levels supposed to represent not the lesser lethality of weapons but how the higher level PCs and NPCs are better at taking and avoiding damage?

The thinking along the lines of Kung Fu movies where the Hero takes out goons by the dozen and then spends an hour in a one on one fight with the boss.

Oh once read a comic that pointed out the original Gamma World an average character would have to be hit 23 times with arrows fired from a regular bow in order to be killed. Now that is some drawn out combat.
Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go?

Ascent's picture
Ascent
March 22, 2013 - 5:33pm
Yeah, the real point to be able to avoid damage is to be able to take bigger risks and come out on top, looking like a cool hero. If the player fails to take those risks, (risks that could end battles more quickly,) then I guess it's their fault for being LAAAAME! :P
View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write.
"It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi
"That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi
Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild)

Malcadon's picture
Malcadon
March 23, 2013 - 9:38am
rattraveller wrote:
Oh once read a comic that pointed out the original Gamma World an average character would have to be hit 23 times with arrows fired from a regular bow in order to be killed. Now that is some drawn out combat.

Interesting? Much of my understanding with GW is with 1st, 2nd and 4th editions, so I might be off. If a 1e PC's HP equals (CON)d6 and arrows are 1d6 each, then the amount of "average hits" would be equal to your Constitution score (10.5 on average). A 2e PSH had boosted attribute scores (roll 4d6 for Intelligence, Charisma and Constitution, add them ALL together, and cap CON at 18), and a HP total of (CON)d8, so they averaged about 49 hit points, and with arrows still doing 1d6, that would be about 14 hits. And 4e gets really mixed with rolling attribute sores, so I'm not going to list them.

I hate how some systems treat hit points! Tho whole point of Hit Point is that it is meant be abstract - a system that represents health, luck, the will to fight, etc. You character could take 6 points of damage form an arrow that would kill a nameless extra, but would only wiz past a hero's ear because the near hit only 'ate' a bit of the hero's luck (or whatever action move stars use that keeps themselves from being shot-up to hell by well-armed and trained soldiers, while they stand in the open and drop them like flies).

Dying from 0-hit points is a perversion of the concept, as its meant to be how long you can stand and fight - not your life force. Any system that knockout characters at 0-hp, and adds additional points (e.g. -10 hp) or rules to account for a "killing blow" (damage threshold) is appropriate to any genre where the hero fights like a cinematic hero. So yeah, 3.x got it right with that.

AZ_GAMER's picture
AZ_GAMER
March 24, 2013 - 1:42pm
The problem seems to be accounting for blood loss and shock. For example some one get shot by an arrow well they usually don't die immediately it takes a little while, depending on hit location, for the person to bleed out and perish. If it's not a fatal wound it may take a little longer with septic shock, infection, and related weakness and illness for the person to succumb. So in a single instance of combat a character may be able to endure 14 arrow strikes before finally giving up the ghost from sheer pain, blood loss, and exhaustion. However a single directed arrow strike at vital area like the throat, eye, head, heart, etc, may deal significantly more damage and hasten death quickly. Characters should loose con / stamina points for every turn a bleeding wound is untreated. That way even a moderate wound will eventually kill the character if it goes untreated. The idea that a character can loose half of his/her hit points and still finish the adventure without medical treatment is what makes old skool rpg's hard to stomach for some people. However, I do agree that hit points are more of a conceptual abstract and can represent more than just how much damage the character can take. But it is a game after all and you have to keep the game playable or else no one will want to play if their character dies every game session (Unless you are playing paranoia and then its tough not to get killed, LOL)

Ascent's picture
Ascent
March 23, 2013 - 11:35am
Dying from any wound is usually on account of shock, not blood loss. Though really, it's for a whole slew of reasons: shock, blood loss, brain or nerve damage, body fluids released into the blood (sepsis, etc.), and bursted heart.
View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write.
"It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi
"That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi
Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild)

jedion357's picture
jedion357
March 23, 2013 - 3:21pm
Aint it nice that we have something clean and simple as hit points or stamina?
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

Ascent's picture
Ascent
March 24, 2013 - 4:28am
Oh, and I forgot failed organs, asphyxiation (from collapsed lungs, fluid in lungs, crushed wind pipe), and pressure on the brain or brains stem. (Though that might fall into the shock category.)

Smile
View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write.
"It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi
"That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi
Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild)

iggy's picture
iggy
March 24, 2013 - 7:46am
Now come up with the complete list for each of the other races.  It seems to be easier to just tally points and let the GM  add symptoms as he deems fit.
-iggy

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
March 24, 2013 - 10:51am
rattraveller wrote:
Oh once read a comic that pointed out the original Gamma World an average character would have to be hit 23 times with arrows fired from a regular bow in order to be killed. Now that is some drawn out combat.

Which is about how many bullets it will take to kill the average SF character wearing a skeinsuit. Wink
I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

Sargonarhes's picture
Sargonarhes
March 25, 2013 - 5:58pm
No the most drawn out combat game ever was Battletech. Not really an RPG unless you were using the Mechwarrior addition to it however. 5 hours just to fight one battle to a conclusion, because every one has to bring whatever mech, vehicle and infantry squad they could muster up. Mechs hobbleing about with not much left on them but internal structure until some loon tries to eject inside a burning building.

I have no experience with D&D 3.5 version. The only RPG's I've ever played was Star Frontiers, Robotech, Rifts. And anything by Palladium has it's own set of problems.
In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same.

jedion357's picture
jedion357
March 25, 2013 - 8:47pm
Use to play a lot of Axis and Allies, that was a game that could take 5 hours to conclude. Had a buddy at Plattsburg AFB that was into it back in '89 but by that time I had played enough to figure out some decent strategies regardless if I was Axis or Allies and beat him 11 games in a row. In fact it got so bad around game 7 that I won in 45 minutes, which seriously pissed him off and he made me reset the board for a new game immediately which after the usual 3-4 hour playing time he lost (talk about insult being added to injury). At some point (game 9 or 10) I explained what my strategies were and he finally beat me on game 12.

Not an RPG but fun upgrade over Risk, and yeah, I aint half bad at risk too.
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

Malcadon's picture
Malcadon
March 26, 2013 - 12:21am
As noted in my last post, Hit Points are a nice, simple rule for dealing with injury (and luck) in a highly abstract way, if the game is set on cinematic action, where crippling injuries are only used as a plot-point.

On the other hand, I have encountered numerous rules and systems for dealing with injuries and their effects on character performance. They can get messy when they use too many Injury Status tags (e.g. "Flesh Wound", "Moderate Wound", "Critically Wounded", etc.), long-winded random injury charts, and/or cluttered, drawn-out notes on injury effects. When used in a large fight with lot of extras and complicated equipment (like mixed armor types), then such rules really hits a mechanical quagmire. Unfortunately, this is a necessary evil if you want to play in a violent and realistic setting, where the common battle cry is "MEDIC!!!"

Ascent's picture
Ascent
March 26, 2013 - 12:55am
Battletech and Axis and Allies take 5 hours to conclude because they're not strictly RPG's. They're combat strategy games, A&A especially. Battletech has roleplaying elements, but in the end, you're trying to crush an enemy of hundreds or thousands of units. It's not like you can end a battle like that in 20 minutes even with the simplest rules. If you go 1 on 1 with machines, though, it shouldn't take more than an hour.
View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write.
"It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi
"That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi
Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild)

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
March 26, 2013 - 10:42am
Ascent wrote:
It's not like you can end a battle like that in 20 minutes even with the simplest rules.

Actually, you can...with the War Machine rules from the D&D Companion set any large scale battle can be resolved in a matter of minutes.
I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. Tongue out

My SF website