Answering this bit first for context
What's the contradiction here? Comprehensive and broad are completely different in meaning, unless I'm failing due to ESL. I don't need 45 specific ways to hit an opponent (feats) or detailed rules for wrestling but not a simple feat of strength going beyond what's directly covered by CMB and CMD. What I need is a system flexible enough to allow
anyone to perform those, not just people that specced into disarm 3 levels before sacrificing their chance to bullrush in the meantime (opportunity cost).
You're maybe conflating my passion for the old extended stats and the more comprehensive feats we have today? Everyone had those stats back then, you must build towards talents, feats and class features. Radically different issues here.
No. This isn't how old system worked. A GM couldn't simply pull numbers from his ass, you don't make
rulings on the fly, you follow design principles and
broader rules. If a fighter attemtps a disarm in 2nd ed you check his size, relative to his opponent and compare weapons and (maybe) specific features. This gives you consistent set of results.
Broad doesn't mean vague. It just means you could get more things done using eg thac0 than BaB (not talking efficiency or math here, just what you
can do using one vs the other in the respective systems). Much of what you write in the above quote and here:
WhiteShark wrote: ↑
February 21st, 2023, 11:32
It's not fun as a player to set yourself up for something big only to discover that the GM has a different understanding of physics/economics/whatever from you. It's also exhausting as the GM to constantly make rulings on the fly because your chosen system is vague.
Can be simply explained with "bad GMing". First of all, a GM should give you an idea of the possible outcomes before you commit to any action. If the player cannot determine what a GM perceive as risks, his character certainly can. You're supposed to reach a sort of compromise.
If I want to attmept a bullrush and throw an orc down a pit in PF I cannot take much of the specific scene at hand in consideration, much has been already (arbitrarily) decided by the game designers, acting as overarching GMs themselves.
By the way, the issue with GM fiat was mainly born out of the organized tournament scene, when you had multiple groups playing vs adventures. Loads of drama because slight variants and interpretation of rules gave advantage to this or that group. Now we have much more 'deterministic' (allow me the word) systems. How's the current scene in Pathfinder/D&D convention? Do they till play vs adventures? No sarcasm, I have little to no idea, I certainly haven't been hearing about those in a long time.
Finally, one could argue modern system succeed precisely because there are few old school GMs around and the current generation cannot manage to rule a game in a balanced and just manner, if those training wheels are taken away. Call it oldschoold pride but I believe it firmly.
Not rly, no. Why should they think outside the box when the base ruleset punishes them for going outside their niche? A single player may have his or her attitude. Dozens of concurrent players share the same mindset currently, tho.
I'm still in the process of learning GURPS but I don't think so. In any case, GURPS has
other issues, chiefly, it's a much harder game on the players. You def need to
know
much more about rules and ruling when playing GURPS than playing D&D. Also, this is a bit OT, we were confronting different editions of the same game. I could have chimed in Exalted, that one
definitely covers all I wrote about with rules.
Even if that's the case (and I'd have to see you actually play a game requiring constant doublechecking of rules and tables), you'd need to find other players/GMs sharing the same mindset. I dunno about you but finding people that spend their free time casually reading gamebooks is quite hard. I'm usually doing the explaining to a good portion of my player groups.
WhiteShark wrote: ↑
February 21st, 2023, 11:32
Lots of things are bad ideas in real life if you don't know how to properly do them. That said, I agree that later editions of D&D are overly punishing when attempting tasks for which you don't have a feat.
Yes but the player characters are the
heroes of the story. I'm against having the world revolve around them but dramatic moments, larger than life actions and pushing human limits to the extreme? Yes please. That's the whole point of the game, else we'd be playing chess.
Yes ofc. If you have the "Depth charge creations" class feature or, for the second example, if the whole party and the enemies have shot on the run, fly by attack and spring attack.