frogspawner

I don't see the cover picture on my copy. So is it supposed to be there or not? :confused:

So where does that leave SharedWorld? Do we continue, assuming the Green is still there, or does it now have to be written-out? I thought a founding principle of the SharedWorld project was that the stuff would remain there and could be modified/extended by all. Doesn't that contravene the 'license'? (I guess this is really a topic for the sub-forum...)

The limitation I'm using is that Martial Arts increases are restricted to +1%, as well as initial restriction and being tied to character background, of course. (Yes, a house rule already - sorry! But I hope it's not too out-of-keeping with straight BRP).

Is it you've just not come across a personality system that's simple enough? (Yes, I agree RP should be rewarded, and use a kind of Karma/Hero points system myself. Not one which involves 'spending' them at critical points, but just makes characters generally luckier all the time. But that's separate from the personality mechanism I'm suggesting.) Yes, definitely, players control of their characters shouldn't be over-ruled. I urge you to consider the system I outlined upthread, because it conforms to both your requirements, IMO: simplicity and freedom.

Oops double post! (See below...)

Yes, you're right - our efforts are best spent organizing and running games, rather than griping. Railing against D&D is such fun, though - and so richly deserved, IMHO!

Yes. BRP is better than D&D, and it's a good thing to say so at every opportunity. In this case it also helps us sympathise with Badcat, beleagured as he is in 'WotC Central' amidst blinkered D&D hordes. The main problem, as I understand it, is no-one will even try BRP there, so he can't run a game. I understand his frustration. If only we could engage the D&Ders in petty name-calling, then at least they'd see there's an alternative...

Yes, simplifying Bleed and limiting Crush effects is probably a good idea. Something along the lines Richard/RosenMcStern suggested should do the job. But I think these effects should be relatively minor, and just there to make combat a bit more interesting. Because I'm guessing that if you've rolled a Special (or thereabouts) you've probably scored a success for Martial Arts with that weapon - and that gives the traditional double damage effect, whatever the weapon type. Surely, in new BRP, all serious combat-specialists would have Martial Arts(favourite weapon) skills?

Hang in there! I for one would be very interested to hear your continued reports from 'behind enemy lines'. But what makes you think 4e's arrival will make players more loyal to D&D? Even WotC are effectively saying they don't think it is good enough (3.5, that is). Brand Loyalty should be at it's lowest ebb. And what about the issue of character conversion? If it's true, as has been said hereabouts, that players are expected to throw away existing 3.5 characters and start fresh in 4e, wouldn't some prefer to keep their character? Converting characters to BRP might be the way to convert the players too... (BTW, what do these D&D-ers think are 4e's virtues?)

I see a fifth way for personality trait rules to be useful: as an aid to roleplaying. My mechanism is this: Have a few traits like extra skills (e.g. Brave 26%, Lustful 39%), hopefully not adding any significant complexity. Just make the trait-roll, when your character behaves that way, to gain a x2 bonus on a skill-roll. (No bonus when the trait-skill has a tick, though - so they're not over-used.) "Method actors" should appreciate their acting gives them a bonus; "Tacticians" should be encouraged to act in-character to gain the bonus. Nobody is dictated-to, and the GM never vetoes a player's chosen action - but can sanction out-of-character actions with 'anti-ticks' (which reduce the trait, with decrease rolls instead of increase rolls) on those hopefully rare occasions it happens. I've only just introduced this system, but it seems to be working well. Die-hard 'tacticians' are starting to role-play...

How dreadful. To avoid any such confusion, maybe I'd better change my tagline to "#280".

This sort of thing came up recently in peterb's "d20 creature conversion" thread. He's converting from 3.x too. But perhaps you, like me, are interested in converting the OLD D&D stuff... (i.e. AD&D).

Probably not, since those mechanics are the core of Pendragon - someone disliking them probably wouldn't be playing. But for BRP I think the traits-like-skills mechanism fits better. It rewards personality traits rather than punishing them (which is what happens even in your example, whether or not we call a non-successful roll a 'fail').

Of course. But having to set up situations for traits makes more work for the GM - which they probably don't need! Also, that way around, traits would prevent players doing what they want with their character (when they fail the roll, anyway). That makes character personality into a stick to beat the players with - controlling, not enabling. A classic GM failing. Character personality should be a good thing, not an obstacle to avoid. IMO, it's better to use a system like that I described upthread, in which the players are looking for opportunities to use their 'trait-skills' - and benefit from them.

Gentlemen, please give it a rest! Anyone saying you can't do roleplaying in 4E is wrong. But anyone saying 4E is good for roleplaying is also wrong. :focus: I think we may have a clue to what we should be thinking about in this thread: So what else has been removed from D&D in creating 4E? Given that its design is moving in the wrong direction for a good RPG, anything that's been taken out might be worthy of careful consideration for inclusion in BRP. That's how we can learn from 4E!

OK, so not 'only if you go against your nature', then. I knew that wouldn't work - thanks for clarifying. That makes it a bit intrusive, though - relying on the GM setting up situations specifically to test certain traits. Hard to be even-handed amongst all the possible traits, too, so as not to test just a few favourites and neglect the rest. OK for Pendragon, perhaps, with its particular focus. But for more normal RPG play I think a 'player-driven' system is better, like the one I oulined above.

Yes, it's better if the personaility mechanics are a tool for the players - not the GM. The system I'm trying is just that: the GM is limited to perhaps awarding the occasional tick (or 'anti-tick') in exceptional cases. Normally, the players do a roll when they feel like it (and are acting according to the trait) to get a benefit. (Though players can roll whenever they like, they can only get a bonus once per session, which limits use of the traits). So the GM never controls the character - that's the player's job. But the player gets benefits if the character acts acording to their chosen persona. For clarity (i.e. your Lustful example is listed as "Chaste 30%...(etc)" which seems confusing), I translate the traits to just the above-50% part. That is, the example (Chaste 30/Lustful 70) would be Lustful 20% (though maybe it should be x2, making Lustful 40% on a 1-100 scale - I'm not sure which would be best).

Yes, yes, I know the basics of these systems. But what I don't understand is how Greg's stated version would function. The problem is that for traits under, say, 70% the character doesn't have a definite "nature" to go against, so there would be no occasion to roll. That's why I don't see how it would work.

One thing to learn from D&D is the giving of rewards for RolePlaying. IMO this is A Good Thing. In 3.5 there were extra XP for RP - still a crude mechanism, but better than nothing (which is what by-the-book BRP has, even now). Mind you, is that bonus going to survive into 4E? Perhaps it'll be improved... :innocent: (Let's get that record... )

Which? And what did you find was wrong with it? Oh, yes - the BRP version doesn't have an in-the-middle "emotional mastery" range though. I don't understand that system, it doesn't seem to work. What percentage is supposed to define someone's "nature"? Chaste/Lustful 49/51 wouldn't be a womanizer, so when would they ever make a roll and get a check?

You are? That's great! The idea just gained quite some respect in my eyes. It is? Well, ok. Despite that, it's still a considerable net gain of respect! (BTW, many thanks, Shaira! Last session the party had a brush with Ulega-Bagu and it was a scream. Blackeye had them so scared of darkness that when the demon appeared they voluntarily ran for the safety of daylight, without any Fearshock! Even the Paladin fled (oops, what a give-away - I should say 'RuneLord', shouldn't I?), abandoning his sword. Perhaps he should have got an 'anti-tick' for Bravery... but I'm such a softie.) I suspect that was intended for Dragonewts only, though - famously unfathomable and unpredictable. A distinctly prototype system, I wouldn't recommend it - definitely too much of an RP straitjacket.

An alternative I've just introduced to my campaign (so it's little-tested, but seems to be going ok so far) is this: Characters can have a few traits just like skills. Players can choose (if the GM agrees the situation is relevant - i.e. the character is acting according to the trait) to roll against a trait - success gives x2 for one roll of a skill they were just about to use (that is, it's Easy). Traits get ticks (experience checks) just like skills, but once they have one can't be used again until the increase is rolled for. If a character blatantly acts against a trait, the GM could bestow an "anti-experience" check for it - for a possible decrease - but that's optional and should be rare. The system is supposed to be "carrot", not "stick" - hopefully enabling, encouraging role-playing, and not overly controlling.

Thanks for that - most informative, though it is bitter-sweet to have one's worst suspicions proved right. This is not just an "I hate DnD" thread, for me at least - I am genuinely looking for things to learn from 4E. The trouble is there's precious little that's good - mostly it's teaching us what not to do in an RPG. Yes, RPG - it is still an RPG. As I said before, anything can be RP-ed. So you could have "Noughts and Crosses - the Role-Playing Game" (with the exact-same rules as we all already know) and it would be an RPG. Sadly, though, 4E appears to be trying to twist what "role" means: to just combat function instead of character personality. WotC seem to have succumbed to the classic GM temptation, becoming controlling instead of enabling (like GS's Glorantha?). And their reasons are obviou$.

Of course you can role-play in any game, the question is just how well a given game supports RP. But from the "roles" being defined for combat in 4E (tanks, strikers, etc), I fear WotC are trying to "move the goalposts" on roleplaying - they are trying to redefine what RP is. They seem to be saying: 'if your character performs their allotted function in combat then you are playing your role' - but that's not what I call role-playing. Yes, it's the persona that matters for real RP. It seems to me 4E is eroding that, or even trying to supplant it entirely. (So they can continue to claim "RPG" status for their new, personality-free D&D). A related worry I have is the "Two year jump in story time line" that is mentioned for 4E. Does that mean there'll be no conversion of existing 3.x characters? If that's true, then goodbye to the character-continuity requirement of RP! Also, are they seeking to dictate what happens in every D&D GM's personal setting? Or are they asserting there is only one world (or a few) for D&D play - and it/they are the property of WotC?

Absolutely. As a Fantasy man, it's clear to me that the one-or-two SciFi/Apocalypse fans out there have used their techno-savvy to pad the votes...