Duck and Cover

Tensen wrote:And last I checked, a LOT of Fallout revolved around combat.

Sure, but the point is that in Fallout you can simply avoid most combat situations through sweet talking, or sneaking around, or building some crazy doomsday machine, or what have you. What I hate about d20 (or D&D, anyway) is that what makes the classes different is how they approach combat, rather than having that much in the way of different things to deal with other situations (since D&D is all about combat). Fighters bash heads, rogues backstab, clerics heal their friends, bards put people to sleep, mages sling fireballs, etc. You get the idea? In Fallout, I'd like to see the game moving away from this in favour of giving the players plenty of solutions to what are potentially combat situations that don't actually involve any sort of fighting. Plenty of rules for things like what I just mentioned would be nice - for how hard it is so sweet talk people in various situations, for hacking computers and stuff, for sneaking around, for bribing people, making traps, and what have you. Fallout shouldn't be a combat game, and I don't even think that combat should be that big a deal in it - it's more about plain ol' survival. I hope this post wasn't TOO irrelevant, but I assume you get the cut of my jib by now.

atoga wrote:

Tensen wrote:And last I checked, a LOT of Fallout revolved around combat.

Sure, but the point is that in Fallout you can simply avoid most combat situations through sweet talking, or sneaking around, or building some crazy doomsday machine, or what have you. What I hate about d20 (or D&D, anyway) is that what makes the classes different is how they approach combat, rather than having that much in the way of different things to deal with other situations (since D&D is all about combat). Fighters bash heads, rogues backstab, clerics heal their friends, bards put people to sleep, mages sling fireballs, etc. You get the idea? In Fallout, I'd like to see the game moving away from this in favour of giving the players plenty of solutions to what are potentially combat situations that don't actually involve any sort of fighting. Plenty of rules for things like what I just mentioned would be nice - for how hard it is so sweet talk people in various situations, for hacking computers and stuff, for sneaking around, for bribing people, making traps, and what have you. Fallout shouldn't be a combat game, and I don't even think that combat should be that big a deal in it - it's more about plain ol' survival. I hope this post wasn't TOO irrelevant, but I assume you get the cut of my jib by now.

I don't actually disagree with what you said, I also dislike how that's all it really is in D&D

That being said...

d20 Modern isn't D&D, it's much better about giving characters(who would understandably have them) non-combat abilities. And yes, I aslo realize they all have combat abilities as well... But compare the Strong Hero to the Smart one...I am right now... WHile most of the Smart Heroes abilities have combat options, none of the Strongs have non-combat/strength options. <b>BUT</b> I fully admit it could be better.

So far, of all the games I've played the only one whose "non-combat dispute resolution" rules I thought were any good was Burning Wheel(With the Duel of Wits)...

See, I think if you're gonna play a sweet-talking character with rapier wit you damn well better be a person like that and back it up in roleplaying

I hate rules that govern what should be roleplaying. If you can't make the GM believe that you would have been able to talk your way past you shouldn't be able to.(Within reason)

Now, I don't at all mind roleplaying BACKED by a die roll(I.E. Intimidation, Diplomacy, etc. checks... Which games DO have.) Where your performance gives you bonuses or negatives(This is actually how it's done in BW) Because I realize there are hard-ass GMs who unless you make a roll don't let anything happen. In fact this is what I do(The rolls not the hard-assing). But RPing is a MAJOR factor, though being a GM and thus automatically biased against the PCs a roll is needed to end the "conflict".

But I feel that the more rules regarding these actions the less roleplaying will occur, why actually come up with something pithy and clever to say if all you hafta do is make a die-roll modified by the situation and see if you succeed.

And yes, I realize not all gamers are roll-mongers... but a LOT are, and almost every group has one who will say insist on just rolling because that's what the rules say to do.

But diplomacy, intimidation, etc. are some of the only things that <b>CAN</b> be handled in RP, so let it handle them(yes yes, with rules backing)

Again, this is a case of GM perrogative... you want a light-combat intrigue game, run one, nothing is stopping you, except maybe your players...

"Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons."

o/ johnnygothisgun

Tensen used the phrase "Duel of Wits". Haven't you seen The Princess Bride? That character, Vizzini, is the perfect example of a character who uses his non-combat skills to avoid combat.

Nevermind.

Ahhh, gotcha... sorry, been a long day.


I used to know the whole thing by heart, even performed it in Drama class.


Of course, he did great roleplaying but fumbled his roll.

Tensen01 wrote: I don't actually disagree with what you said, I also dislike how that's all it really is in D&D

Ouch.. =/
Just so you know, Atoga and Tensen, not all rogues are the same, and not all mages are the same either.
I wont go into details, but if a person doesn't have the imagination to make a different kind of character despite a defined class, then it's the players fault, not the setting.

d20 Modern isn't D&D, it's much better about giving characters(who would understandably have them) non-combat abilities. And yes, I aslo realize they all have combat abilities as well... But compare the Strong Hero to the Smart one...I am right now... WHile most of the Smart Heroes abilities have combat options, none of the Strongs have non-combat/strength options. BUT I fully admit it could be better.

It makes sense though, doesn't it?
If you're a scientist, but happen to have a strong character, then it's logical that you don't have any special abilities regarded to being smart.
Since your talent lies in strength. What makes this character a hero (and remember, players should almost always be seen as heroes, or something special), is that he's both skilled in science, and a physically strong person.


I agree with you, that a person should be able to wiggle his way out of a fight, if he's able to. Within logical borders, and if a player chooses or/and is allowed to, to enforce his point, offer or logical reasoning with a roll, just to give it a little extra, or nothing.

Rolling though is a funny thing.. it's really just an excuse to better a situation because you don't have the skills to describe what you do, or you don't bother to do it every single time you have to, say, attack.

There are die-free games out there, where the only thing you do is talk and write down your possessions. But you need a very openminded GM for that.. and one who doesn't enjoy smacking the shit out of his players.

Smiley wrote:Just so you know, Atoga and Tensen, not all rogues are the same, and not all mages are the same either.
I wont go into details, but if a person doesn't have the imagination to make a different kind of character despite a defined class, then it's the players fault, not the setting.

My point is not that they're all the same, it's just that what makes them unique is their approach to combat, rather than something more interesting. I'm not complaining about class limitations; I'm just saying that combat is really what the essence of D&D is, and what all of the classes were built with in mind - which makes all of them equally limited and boring.

I like the notion that d20 modern allows you to focus your class on a certain stat, though - it's less combat oriented, which is good. As long as characters aren't defined by some notion of what they 'should' be doing in combat, I'm happy.

Jamming weapons.

Atoga, also remember Modern has Occupations too, which give you skills and a few other bonuses, all non-combat related.

So, imagine a smart Trader... He's not gonna be a fighting type(by rules, the player, as Smiley pointed out, contirbutes as well), he's gonna be someone using his smarts to hoodwink someone and keep from being beat up.

Modern really is more versital.

One thing I definately like to see in a Fallout RPG is a serious attempt to create a fun, playable setting, instead of worrying about being completely in-sync with what is 'canon'. If there are no intelligent Deathclaws in the game because some character mentioned they were all dead in one of the alternate endings and the possibility of there being more offends some people, then the game is going to be a piece of crap.

I think d20 will make a good fit for Fallout. The SPECIAL system is untested (for tabletop RPGing) and not really designed for human beings (i.e., math heavy). I'd also like to vote in favour of races-as-classes. In D&D, a character's occupation was their defining feature. In Fallout, race is a much more defining feature. For races we'd need to have Ghouls, Super Mutants, BeastLord, Deathclaws, and even Robots and Dogs (at least for NPCs, I want a dog, dammit). For humans we'd probably need 3 or 4 classes: Vault-Dwellers (the most flexible class), Tribals (warrior/ranger types), Reavers (techie class) and maybe a social/rogue-like class (City Denizen?). We don't need a class for every single occupation a human can have. Save being in the Brotherhood for an advanced class. Same for being a Raider.

I think the classes in d20 Modern suffer from a lack of definition. In D&D, a Wizard, a Cleric, and a Warrior are worlds apart - fireballs, turning undead, and major weaponry. But in d20 Modern the classes (particularly the base classes) are mostly the same except for their feats - what's the difference between a Strong Hero and Fast Hero? One has Uncanny Dodge and the other does +1 melee damage. Their statistics are different, but there isn't much in the way of uniqueness. No one mistakes a Barbarian for a Monk. I hope the classes in F20 are more defined.

For attack types, I kind of like the way Fallout had different skills for different types of weapons. I'd like to see F20 go the same way with a handful of combat skills instead of using a generic attack bonus. I also think it would be neat if different weapons or feats modified the penalty to your next attack. There is already a precedent with the Monk in 3e only incurring a -3 to further attacks when unarmed. This system would nicely emulate the different AP costs of weapons and AP modifying feats from the Fallout games.

On a related note, I think it would be best to drop armour and weapon proficiency. Everyone needs to wear armour to survive - it's not like D&D where you can have magical items in place of armour.

If there are any psychic powers in the game, then I hope they are kept very subtle, like the BeastLords telepathy, or the Master's psychic attacks, or the dreams from Fallout 2.

Also, we need drugs!!!

Finally, I don't think wealth rolls would work in F20, because money was such a huge deal in the first two games, so abstracting it away would weaken the game.

Actually, it wasn't a character that mentioned they were dead - it was Chris Avellone, one of the main makers of Fallout 2, the cancelled Fallout 3 and the Fallout Bible. And I don't mind playable deathclaws as an option in the bestiary - but they definitely shouldn't be one of the main races. Having beastlords, one small tribe from the East which was destroyed by the Eastern Brotherhood by the time Tactics ends as a main race is outright silly, as is having playable dogs - if you have a dog as an NPC, the bestiary entry should be enough. Humans, ghouls and super mutants are the only intelligent beings that are widely spread in known areas of the Fallout world and are somewhat accepted into the Wasteland society, even if it doesn't include all towns. If a species perceived as a ferocious monster is going to be portrayed as a party member as viable as a ghoul or super mutant, the game is going to be crap. And do you imagine "a small human tribe from the East who can control animals and who is entirely or almost entirely extinct anyway" included as a race in a main book in any RPG?

And why should Reavers, who are just one small cult from Kansas should be a main class, while raiders, who are much more common, should not? That doesn't make any sense either. And having too tightly defined classes is what makes D&D bad, actually. In Fallout d20, they should just get rid of basic classes altogether, and make a classless system (i.e. one very flexible class for all in terms of d20 rules). And again, all your examples of D&D class abilities revolved around combat.

And including both FO1/2 and Tactics locations and factions in one book doesn't make any sense if they only have rights to those, since there's a huge gap from Nevada to Colorado in what we know about the Fallout world, and if they make it up they'll undoubtedly be contradicted by Bethesda's Fallout 3. The main book should focus on the California, Nevada and Oregon area, where FO1 and FO2 are set, and Tactics, if anything, should be covered in future ones.

As for money, it's a big part of *every* computer RPG. A PnP trading system should focus on barter, though.

Ausir wrote:And including both FO1/2 and Tactics locations and factions in one book doesn't make any sense if they only have rights to those, since there's a huge gap from Nevada to Colorado in what we know about the Fallout world, and if they make it up they'll undoubtedly be contradicted by Bethesda's Fallout 3. The main book should focus on the California, Nevada and Oregon area, where FO1 and FO2 are set, and Tactics, if anything, should be covered in future ones.

Well, John has said(not on here),

We have determined that 2198 will be the time line if that help to
answer your question Craig. This is the start of Fallout Tactics but
still some time before FO2 . Our expansion books, the first one will
consist manly of organizations and factions, BoS, the Enclave and even
some new areas not canon of our own design.

So looks like most of the main book will be rules and general setting, with all the specifics in later books.

And I'd love to see stuff in Colorado(as I live there), I planned on running a game set here.

Oh, and don't be so harsh on the dude... It was his first post.

True, but I'd still be inclined to include only stuff from FO1 and FO2 in the main book, since there isn't really any interaction between FO1/2 and FOT factions and places around 2198...

Also, I think that placing it after Tactics opens up more possibilities for the FOT region than at the start of FOT - and it allows for more retcons to make it consistant with FO1/2. Especially that only one of the FOT endings can be considered canon - the one where the Calculator is destroyed, the other ones would definitely destroy the balance in Fallout world and make the Eastern BOS too powerful.

As for Colorado, Denver was one of the main locations in Van Buren, but they don't have rights to use it, and in FOT, most of the Colorado area was decimated by Calculator's robots, so if it's set around FOT, it should be a pretty desolate place.

Also, where did he say that?

I would love to just have it focus on nothing but the first two games and what other timeline is in the Bible...

They don't have rights to use Van Buren's idea about Colorado... but last I checked, no one wanted that stuff to even be considered as canon.

It was said in a message on the art group in responce to a question about setting.

Well, actually, I'd like Van Buren to be canon - there was lots of cool stuff there, and most of the criticism was either of gameplay and SPECIAL issues and of stuff added late in development (like the space station and spaceships) that weren't part of Avellone's original design. It was closer in feel to Fallout than Fallout Tactics or even Fallout 2, and much more consistant and gritty - the story was much better than anything else with "Fallout" on the box except the original. It was probably also much better than anything Bethesda makes up. And if it's used for the Fallout PnP, at least the whole work wouldn't go to waste.

Also, given that the Van Buren story was initially Chris Avellone's Fallout PnP campaign, wouldn't it be cool if Glutton asked Avellone to write a Van Buren campaign for d20?

Ausir wrote:Actually, it wasn't a character that mentioned they were dead - it was Chris Avellone, one of the main makers of Fallout 2, the cancelled Fallout 3 and the Fallout Bible. And I don't mind playable deathclaws as an option in the bestiary - but they definitely shouldn't be one of the main races. Having beastlords, one small tribe from the East which was destroyed by the Eastern Brotherhood by the time Tactics ends as a main race is outright silly, as is having playable dogs - if you have a dog as an NPC, the bestiary entry should be enough. Humans, ghouls and super mutants are the only intelligent beings that are widely spread in known areas of the Fallout world and are somewhat accepted into the Wasteland society, even if it doesn't include all towns. If a species perceived as a ferocious monster is going to be portrayed as a party member as viable as a ghoul or super mutant, the game is going to be crap. And do you imagine "a small human tribe from the East who can control animals and who is entirely or almost entirely extinct anyway" included as a race in a main book in any RPG?

You're making a huge amount of assumptions about F20: that it will take place in the same area as the games, that it will take place after Fallout 2, and that players will play in the same fashion as we played the video game. What if we want to play a group of Raiders? What if we want to play between F1 and F2? A Deathclaw could fit in there. If Horus can get around in Fallout 2 I don't see why it would be such a huge problem.

As for extinction, the Deathclaws were 'extinct' after the first Fallout, and suddenly there were back in Fallout 2. It isn't a big deal saying there are more of them out there. Same goes for other factions. I think the Beastlords would make an interesting addition to the game, which is more important than following every single detail of the video games. I'd rather the makers of F20 make an interesting game with the spirit of Fallout than a boring game dedicated to fitting into Fallout continuity.

And who's to say that mutation found in the Beastlords was completely unique to them? We know so little about the Fallout world and yet you're ready to proclaim whole races extinct.

Ausir wrote: And why should Reavers, who are just one small cult from Kansas should be a main class, while raiders, who are much more common, should not? That doesn't make any sense either. And having too tightly defined classes is what makes D&D bad, actually. In Fallout d20, they should just get rid of basic classes altogether, and make a classless system (i.e. one very flexible class for all in terms of d20 rules). And again, all your examples of D&D class abilities revolved around combat.

From a race-based class point-of-view, having Raiders as a class wouldn't make sense, because being a Raider is something you do. If F20 has occupational based classes, than having a Raider class is a must. I'd rather see a classless system then occupational classes, however.

In the Star Wars RPG there is a section devoted to the Force and the Jedi. How many Jedi were in the original movies? Two. Although the Jedi were rare in the universe they were common in the stories. Same goes for the Reavers and the Beastlords - a good chunk of FT:BoS was devoted to them.

Ausir wrote: And including both FO1/2 and Tactics locations and factions in one book doesn't make any sense if they only have rights to those, since there's a huge gap from Nevada to Colorado in what we know about the Fallout world, and if they make it up they'll undoubtedly be contradicted by Bethesda's Fallout 3. The main book should focus on the California, Nevada and Oregon area, where FO1 and FO2 are set, and Tactics, if anything, should be covered in future ones.

Rifts did the whole book-per-area-of-the-world. I doubt the F20 people wild do the same. They'll probably just make general statements about the US in general and not worry about specific locations.

A.J.

I personally agree about the Deathclaws, but the discussion has sort of been hammered into the ground and, in my opinion, was getting a little close to a flame war(it's a touchy subject), and also, none of the Designers have weighed in, so I think it can rest for right now.

I personally love classless games (GURPS, etc.) but I think the use of d20 Moderns Classes and Occupations would work very well for fallout, since they're not using GURPS(which I would love). And I personally hated the Races-as-classes from 1st edition, it removes a LOT of depth from characters, unless the players inject some(which not all will, sadly).

But, again, non of the designers have told us anything, so it's all just an intillectual excersize.

What if we want to play a group of Raiders? What if we want to play between F1 and F2? A Deathclaw could fit in there. If Horus can get around in Fallout 2 I don't see why it would be such a huge problem.

He's Goris, not Horus, and he was unique even for a talking deathclaw - he was much smaller (so he could go as a hooded mutant) and more intelligent, and also more inclined to leave his pack - other DC's are pack animals, they don't usually go around alone.

As for extinction, the Deathclaws were 'extinct' after the first Fallout, and suddenly there were back in Fallout 2. It isn't a big deal saying there are more of them out there.

The deathclaws weren't extinct after the first Fallout, the Vault Dweller could (but didn't have to) kill one pack of them. And I'm talking about the talking deathclaws, which were created shortly before Fallout 2 and destroyed during or shortly after Fallout 2. The talking deathclaws in Fallout Tactics were a continuity error, so let's not discuss those.

And who's to say that mutation found in the Beastlords was completely unique to them? We know so little about the Fallout world and yet you're ready to proclaim whole races extinct.

Why call them beastlords, then, instead of simply psykers? Anyway, from Fallout Tactics Mardin debriefing:

Our scribes were correct on the Beastlords' relationship with their animal lackeys. The Beastlords inherent telepathic suggestion is a unique ability. It is acquired through prolonged exposure to an unknown radiation present within Mardin's underground caves.\n\n
Unfortunately, we will not be able to duplicate this feat. The scribes explained that this unique mutation only manifests in humans that have been exposed for at least twenty years. But, it is of little matter, since science and discipline will always be victorious over ungodly mutation.

In the Star Wars RPG there is a section devoted to the Force and the Jedi. How many Jedi were in the original movies? Two. Although the Jedi were rare in the universe they were common in the stories. Same goes for the Reavers and the Beastlords - a good chunk of FT:BoS was devoted to them.

Jedi in Star Wars aren't a small faction limited to one planet, that showed up only in the Expanded Universe.