Powered by Invision Power Board


Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> WoT Rule Engine vs. D&D
The Dread Morg
Posted: Jan 16 2004, 06:17 PM
Quote Post


Learned Master
***

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Member No.: 8
Joined: 17-December 03



I was mg this in the Birthright rules talk, but I have seriously begun to consider the WoT rule engine (the CHanneling system, classes, etc) to be preferable (if not superior) to the standard D&D rule set.

I was wondering if the WoT players generally felt the same, and if they use the WoT engine in their gaming? The WoT setting itself is failry specific and quite differnet from most fantasy settings, so I can see why the appeal is for a much smaller audience.

Are there any pitfalls and balance issues if you try and use the WoT engine in a "non-WoT" setting? Males can channel, no ogier, etc. etc.


--------------------
"The Right To Rule is Yours by Birth; All You Need Do is Try and Claim It."

Bloodsilver.com
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteICQMSN
Top
MagusRogue
Posted: Jan 16 2004, 07:01 PM
Quote Post


Village fool. Paid well.
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 703
Member No.: 26
Joined: 16-January 04



i love the channeling system. Feels more like real magic to me than anything else. As for the classes, as written many were just Cut-and-Pastes from the original Star Wars d20, and the others... needed a bit work. For the cut-n-pastes, just use the new revised ones (though i'm keeping wanderers with their sneak attack instead of precise attack, and bumping it to +2d6 per 6 levels, maxing at +6d6 at 18th level). the others... well, ask around. Literally EVERYONE has their own idea on what the Algai'd'siswai class should have (myself included).

but yeah, i love the channeling system as is, though i had to add rules on channeling fatigue.

BTW, shouldn't this be in the WoT RPG discussion thread?


--------------------
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand this rant's done.

Magus the Extreme. Your wonderfully-ghoulish partner GM of Patterns of the Weave. Be fearful, indeed.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteICQAOLYahooMSN
Top
Entropic_existence
Posted: Jan 16 2004, 08:53 PM
Quote Post


Breaker-of-horses-and-men
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 116
Member No.: 22
Joined: 15-January 04



I like the WoT Setting, although as Magnus said, most "hardcore" WoT fans find lots of little things they don't like. But as a big proponent of the Golden Rule if you don't like something, don't use it or change it. Personally I think the Channeling system would have been better done in the style of psionics (in DnD) or the force (in Star Wars) rather than with the whole spell slot deal. It just doesn't fell like the channeling in the books to me. But when I start my first campaign soon I'll run with it as is. If I was better at makign rule mechanics myself I'd probably do a conversion...someday heh. Anyway in all I like the system and the setting.


--------------------
What is dead can never die.
PMEmail PosterAOLYahooMSN
Top
Eosin the Red
Posted: Jan 17 2004, 06:49 AM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 276
Member No.: 2
Joined: 9-December 03



I obviously like the system....I don't care a whole bunch for d20 in general, too many high magic conventions but the WOT rules set is the best of the lot IMO.

I used some of the classes in my PbeM and they worked well. The difficulty will be intergrating Clerics into the Wheel RPG. I think it can be done but would take a little work.

Paladins are easy...just make it a PRC.







--------------------
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
LuciusT
Posted: Jan 17 2004, 02:41 PM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 123
Member No.: 19
Joined: 15-January 04



QUOTE
I was wondering if the WoT players generally felt the same, and if they use the WoT engine in their gaming?  The WoT setting itself is failry specific and quite differnet from most fantasy settings, so I can see why the appeal is for a much smaller audience.


Overall, I prefer the WoT rules to D&D because overall I prefer the WoT setting to the D&D setting. smile.gif Some people will claim that D&D doesn't have a setting, but I think the it clear that it does, albeit an often vague and ill-defined one.

Personally, I prefer a setting that involves rare magic (most classes can't use it), and where problem solving and rp is at least of equal importance to combat (more skill points and classes, like Noble, whose abilities are dependent on rp).

Of course, I have re-written every class to a greater or lesser degree, along with the channeling system and background rules, but I still like the system. smile.gif

QUOTE
Are there any pitfalls and balance issues if you try and use the WoT engine in a "non-WoT" setting?  Males can channel, no ogier, etc. etc.


The biggest one I would point out is that most of the "balance" on channelers is rp/setting derived. A powerful channeler could easily destroy a foe and, since most classes don't have access to "magic" only another channeler can effectively resist them. In the WoT setting, they don't do this because there are societial rules that restrict their behavior. I actually have a powerful channeler in my current campaign who almost never channels because it isn't an effective, or even permitted, way to deal with the challenges presented to her.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Timetwister
Posted: Jan 19 2004, 02:42 AM
Quote Post


Learned Master
***

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Member No.: 37
Joined: 19-January 04



I agree with Lucius that WoT is imo far superior a setting than D&D, but that is kind of obvious considering the vast scope in which RJ goes into detail, thus creating a very real world. Rulewise I too prefer WoT, because of it's balance (mainly the channeling system). Though it doesnt represent the channeling system used in the books all too well, and has some errors, in a whole I enjoy the system very much.


--------------------
Timetwister, formerly known as Chel'adar Tamero

"To wield power is to balance on the tip of a sword,
To fail in this majestical dance is to be corrupted by it,
to succesfully wield it requires responsibility, diplomacy and strength of heart"
PMEmail Poster
Top
Eosin the Red
Posted: Jan 19 2004, 07:56 AM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 276
Member No.: 2
Joined: 9-December 03



The Morgish one can also take a look here: Rigil Kent's Web for some ideas. I had a big long essay on world conversion but it is gone like so much of my stuff.



--------------------
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Kinvadren
Posted: Jan 21 2004, 10:50 AM
Quote Post


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 42
Joined: 20-January 04



I play D&D every week with a bunch of friends and it's surprising how many things I've taken from WoT and suggested to the players. The magic system is especially enjoyed by the players more than the one in D&D (over "channeling" was the first WoT rule added to our games).

Also I love the fact that WoT is much more focused on role playing instead of just score playing. My group really needs to be pushed to RP or they forget to do it at all.

Another thing I love about WoT is that monsters are rare. You're mostly up against normal things like people and animals. I've seen it often where players see an enemy monster and instantly attack it just because it's an Oger and all the Orgers they've met before were evil. Encounters aren't that black and white in WoT.

One thing I felt was really lacking in WoT were classes and prestige classes. So that disappointed me a bit.
PMEmail Poster
Top
drothgery
Posted: Jan 21 2004, 03:31 PM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 126
Member No.: 25
Joined: 15-January 04



Heh.

If I were using WoT rules to run a "d20 fantasy" game in a different setting, overchanneling would probably be the first thing I'd drop. It's one of the things that's in the rules in order for the game to be more like the books, but it's mechanically messy, so I'd scratch in a non-WoT setting. And gender differences in channeling, madness, linking, angreal, and two classes (algai and wilder) wouldn't be far behind on the way out the door.


--------------------
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Axel
Posted: Jan 22 2004, 11:05 PM
Quote Post


Freelance HTML coder (hint Aleshandre)
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 218
Member No.: 54
Joined: 22-January 04



Well first I would prefer playing D&D to WoT for a very simple reason: WoT has a very specifically and detailed setting precreated, and much of it was designed only to meet that setting. D&D, in contrast, has no setting and is designed more freely. I have to disagree with those who say that it has a setting, as both my father and I created our own campaign worlds from scratch. I know that I relied heavily on my European History book for mine, which is why both Rome and Athens appear in it.

However the classes and magic system for WoT are much more balanced than those in 3rd edition. Unlike 3e not every class in WoT has spellcasting abilities complete with their own individual spell tables. WoT also lacks such useless classes as Rogue, Bard, and Barbarian. Although it does have Algai and Noble.


--------------------
Honorary Paladin of the Lawful Naughty
If I seem to hate the d20 system, its only because I hate the system. Actually I just hate 3e, its biased me against the system. I rather like WoT.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top
Aleshandre
Posted: Jan 23 2004, 02:52 AM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 130
Member No.: 18
Joined: 15-January 04



In all, there is little mechanically different between D&D & WoT any more than D&D & D20 Modern. The bits that are are setting oriented primarily, though I have to say that the D&D Martial Weapons Group proficiency is definitely better than the exotic weapon style martial weapons prof in WoT. The same group in Modern is only cosmeticaly different (Archaic Weapons Proficiency). I do agree that the channeling system is best for a WoT based or variant setting, though it could easily be applied to any magic setting. The only thing that I would do to change the channeling system is to allow the "restore power" weave to be cast on non channelers to give them the ability to channel (primarily as a prereq for non-magic classes to take channeling feats). Really for full flexibility, I would go with Modern with channeling added in as another magic system and still include the standard magic.


--------------------
PMEmail Poster
Top
Quillion
Posted: Jan 23 2004, 07:23 AM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 126
Member No.: 11
Joined: 6-January 04



First dnd not having a setting is ridiculous go play Forgotten Realms it is the best D&D setting out their as to third edition Silver Marches is one of the best Rpg setting pieces out there.

Now thier is also Midnight which is a bar none setting for d20

Freeport along with the Book of the Righteous is a very very good setting.

Diamond Throne is a damn good d20 setting.

Now as to the WoT it sucks as a game setting because thier is nothing of detail except in the two rivers. One of the big reasons for threads fo the pattern is this very reason. and it suffers from the Dragonlance, the heros doe everything cool syndrome.

Now if we want to talk about gaming systems Gurps is by far the best gaming system out there. d6 is also good as are hero system and tristat. Then there is Ars magica which I enjoy too.

Yet let me tell you what sets d20 above the rest I can play Midnight to mutants and master minds to Farscape to Testment to d20 modern and not have to learn another game system and neither do all the people I play with.





--------------------
Quillion
Ogre Sage of Pencil Pushers Publishing
Mythical Gaming!

Coming soon for 3P's the Last Dominion:
Night of Fire by Randy Madden (Eosin the Red)
Here There Be Monsters by Steven Russell (Quillion)

"A hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong!"--Anonymous
PMEmail Poster
Top
Eosin the Red
Posted: Jan 23 2004, 07:49 AM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 276
Member No.: 2
Joined: 9-December 03



I am not sure I get your reply Axel.

There is "A setting" for D&D, that is Greyhawk. GH and FR are essentially the same animal under the current game with Mordican hitting 20+ levels along with other members of the Circle of Eight. The D&D rules have a HUGE load of inherency built into them that the WoT does not, nor does Modern - part of that is instant, frequent access to healing and resurection, copious amounts of magic and spell casting, and outrageously high stats. WoT does not have any of these flaws and behaves closer to Fantasy Lit than it does to Fantasy Gaming (big surprise there since it is trying to emulate Lit).

Wheel of Time has much less built into the system, like Dave said - take out Male/Female stuff, Overchanneling, and the Algai and Wilder and you have a nice generic d20 system for gaming. It does not assume High Magic, nor 36 INT scores or dual welding keen, thundering, ghost tuouched, defending swords of shocking burst +5.

D&D is chock full of built in assumptions that just are not condusive with Fantasy of the type seen in Lit. Modern has some very vocal proponets for this same reason).

I have gone back to the game I played for the 10 years prior to 3E, Hero System. It works well and does more for me, but I know that it ain't other people cup of tea. When I do play d20, I know which rules set allows me as the DM the most freedom and that is WoT.

Take a look at my homebrew stuff in the forums below these. I don't have room for all of the D&D isms in my world and I don't want to have to think D&D Magic through to its conclusion.

But Hey, if something works for someone I am all for that. I just know Morg and know exactly what it is that he is looking for. I like the same type of games that he does and play the same style.





--------------------
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
drothgery
Posted: Jan 23 2004, 03:22 PM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 126
Member No.: 25
Joined: 15-January 04



QUOTE (Eosin the Red @ Jan 23 2004, 07:49 AM)
Wheel of Time has much less built into the system, like Dave said - take out Male/Female stuff, Overchanneling, and the Algai and Wilder and you have a nice generic d20 system for gaming. It does not assume High Magic, nor 36 INT scores or dual welding keen, thundering, ghost tuouched, defending swords of shocking burst +5.

D&D is chock full of built in assumptions that just are not condusive with Fantasy of the type seen in Lit. Modern has some very vocal proponets for this same reason).

The biggest thing in the default D&D setting that doesn't jive with much quasi-Medieval European fantasy lit isn't the medium-high to high level of magic, per se. It's one component of that high level of magic. There's a lot of lit with individual spellcasters who seem at least as powerful as Elminster or Mordenkainen. There's a lot of lit where spellcasters are as common as they are in the Realms. There are plenty of fantasy worlds where magic is as flexible as D&D magic. But almost none have anywhere near as many magic items in circulation.

Incidentally, there are only two things that keep WoT from being as "high magic" as D&D -- the aforementioned low numbers of magic items, err, ter'angreal and power-wrought items, in circulation and strong social conventions that keep people from using magic, err, channeling as much as they could. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of extant channelers in the Westlands (there are certainly tens of thousands with the ability to learn). Rand or Demandred might not be able to best Elminster, but they've still got quite a bit of supernatural punch. And while the Power isn't as flexible as D&D magic, it's still capable of doing a wide range of stuff.


--------------------
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
The Dread Morg
Posted: Jan 23 2004, 04:50 PM
Quote Post


Learned Master
***

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Member No.: 8
Joined: 17-December 03



QUOTE (Eosin the Red @ Jan 23 2004, 07:49 AM)
... part of that is instant, frequent access to healing and resurection, copious amounts of magic and spell casting, and outrageously high stats.

Amen brother!

I prefer a game where a 10' wide pit becomes something of a challenge to cross. In D&D, players pay as much attention to things like pits as they do to gnats in their sleeping bag. (How many players actually carry a sleeping sack anyway??!!)

I am liking hte WoT rules much more as I read through them, and will eventualy manage to strip it of WoT specific concepts and use the remaining engine for my D&D games. 3E overstuffs everything IMO; there is no need to have a "barabarian class" for example. A barabarian is a fighter who doesn't bathe. Give him the same class and let the player pick skills to suit a barabarian (which is detailed in the rules as a Conan orientated archtype - what about a desert warrior, or a jungle tribes man? Are they the same kind of "barabarian??)

3E has too much pudding in the pie for my tastes. If it's good for you, then great, but as Randy says, give something with a little less, and let me make it a whole bunch more.

YMMV of course.


--------------------
"The Right To Rule is Yours by Birth; All You Need Do is Try and Claim It."

Bloodsilver.com
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteICQMSN
Top
Axel
Posted: Jan 23 2004, 08:22 PM
Quote Post


Freelance HTML coder (hint Aleshandre)
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 218
Member No.: 54
Joined: 22-January 04



I did mention my biggest problem with 3e is its overuse of magic, didn't I? That along with its redundant and poorly designed class system. (both problems WoT either lacks, or possess in much smaller amounts)
But I have to question your statement on Barbarians Dread Morg, how is that different from Algai'd'siswai, shouldn't that just be another kind of Woodsman? Shouldn't Noble really be a background with the character as either a Wanderer or an Armsman? (I'm agreeing with you, but you should examine your point)
However I cannot agree with saying that D&D has a setting, using the Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, or Dark Sun settings isn't conclusive. The existence of these many settings and thier differences (seeing as each adjusts the standard rules to fit) actually goes towards proving that D&D is more flexible. It is also something of a badge of honor for a DM to design his own world from scratch, almost like using the precreated worlds is cheating. The overavability if magical items also plays into this, if the DM wants them to be common then in his world every peasant owns a minor magical item, if the DM wants it uncommon then maybe even great nations will battle over the rights of a petty item.
I also know that in previous editions (3e breaks so many old standards) that a cleric capable of resurection was so rare, charged so much, and with the chances of failure, only high level characters could afford it.


--------------------
Honorary Paladin of the Lawful Naughty
If I seem to hate the d20 system, its only because I hate the system. Actually I just hate 3e, its biased me against the system. I rather like WoT.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top
drothgery
Posted: Jan 23 2004, 08:27 PM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 126
Member No.: 25
Joined: 15-January 04



Err... the only reason why clerics capable of resurection were rare prior to 3e is because the game mechanics broke down badly beyond 9th level, so games were usually reset when they hit that point.


--------------------
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Axel
Posted: Jan 23 2004, 08:40 PM
Quote Post


Freelance HTML coder (hint Aleshandre)
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 218
Member No.: 54
Joined: 22-January 04



No, I found that usually you hit a point were there simply aren't any more adventures for the characters. Nothing else challenges them, and you can't just keep sending bigger, and bigger monsters at them. So eventually they start a new party just because its fun to play low levels.
Besides, most of the rules were kept so loose that only a fault by the DM could make the game collapse.


--------------------
Honorary Paladin of the Lawful Naughty
If I seem to hate the d20 system, its only because I hate the system. Actually I just hate 3e, its biased me against the system. I rather like WoT.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top
Quillion
Posted: Jan 24 2004, 12:10 AM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 126
Member No.: 11
Joined: 6-January 04



QUOTE
Its redundant and poorly designed class system. (both problems WoT either lacks, or possess in much smaller amounts
)

I have followed your comments on this board and the other board Axel. From what I have gathered you don't like class systems at all and want a costomizable skill basesd system. The majority of D&D players want class based systems because it is part of the way DND is played. I have not seen a Skill based D20 system though Mutants and Masterminds is close.







--------------------
Quillion
Ogre Sage of Pencil Pushers Publishing
Mythical Gaming!

Coming soon for 3P's the Last Dominion:
Night of Fire by Randy Madden (Eosin the Red)
Here There Be Monsters by Steven Russell (Quillion)

"A hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong!"--Anonymous
PMEmail Poster
Top
Stormcrow
Posted: Jan 24 2004, 01:46 AM
Quote Post


Learned Master
***

Group: Members
Posts: 21
Member No.: 51
Joined: 22-January 04



If you truly want to play a classless system than you should try HERO. It is very open and you can create anything without any structure. Of course the one drawback is that combat is too detailed for its own good and a simple combat can take an hour..... Or maybe it is just the groups I played in....


--------------------
Grandfather told my Father "back in my day son, a man had to answer for the wicked thing he'd done. Take all the Rope in Mhoried and find a tall oak tree round up all of them bad boys and hang em high in the street.... for all the people to see."
PMEmail Poster
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic OptionsPages: (2) [1] 2  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll