hgrph

[kerin]

Sometimes I wonder what the fuck I was thinking about, building my own game

This is driving me insane.

Ironically, what's giving me the most trouble is the classes and spells - which I'd need to come up with for D20, anyway.  erg.

I'm having pretty severe attention span issues, as well; I think I've touched on the subject here, but to sum up I tend to

Comments

[corduroybard]

Well, the skills don't bother me so much as the way 3 and 3.5 stack them. Stick with d20 Modern, d20 Past, or d20 Future though (the original books written for the system) and you'll have a better time.

Hackmaster did some fun things, and it is less incoherent, but not necessarily better. Try working up a few Hackmaster characters and you'll see what I mean, the system is bloated to the point of disbelief. It's fun, but gets rather complicated. Still it does love miniatures.

I like first ed. though because it's the easiest to work with. That's not to say workable, as it sucks as written. What first ed. has is a very good framework to build a complete set of rules onto. What I play isn't first ed. colloquially in these parts we refer to it as Dave ed. after the man from whom most of the rules changes originate. Notable changes include an improved specialization system for mages, no spell components for same, assignable percentages for thieves, limited freecasting for clerics, etc. There is alot you can do with first ed. I'm unlikely to change much more because Dave ed. has me pretty well covered and leaves me free to do world building which I much prefer. I may embark on making a new system again someday, but only as a cooperative effort with friends.

[kerin]

My point was mostly that D&D3/d20 characters innately have several skills purpose-built to replace or bypass conversation and/or interaction, and neither D20 Modern nor D20 Past do away with that.

The rules I'm working on are - well, I'd describe them as minimalist. Maybe if I get lucky I can keep them that way.