What I mainly remember is that they began to bring in character BUILDING but ruined it by preserving that idiotic class system that penalizes characters trying to learn all "forbidden" skills. It is an improvement over permanently condeming wizards to a -6 penalty for trying to use a sword (I am not saying that is bad, but there is a reason things like Mordenkainens Sword came along in the days when Gygax still ran campaigns) but not by much.


I was speaking in terms of 2nd Ed., where anything but a greatsword or polearm limits the 20th level fighter to no more (and in most cases less) damage dice per attack than the 10th level fighter has hit dice per level. I also ignored bonuses for the sake of simplicity, though I think they tend to favor the defender; if the 20th level fighter gets a damage bonus from Str, the 10th level gets a Dex bonus to AC to avoid each attack PLUS Con bonuses to each of his 10 hit dice. Speccing the 20th level fighter a few times offsets that a bit, but not nearly enough. All else being equal though, the 20th level fighter is probably doing d6 or d8 damage with each attack and the 10th level fighter had 10d10 HP, so the latter can probably survive ten hits (not even counting misses) from the former with ease.

The much higher level fighter will EVENTUALLY kill the lower level (though he should be able to walk up and almost instantly dispatch him 90% of the time,) but that really just underscores the problem: A seasoned veteran cannot even get a lucky kill on an heroic champion, any more than a 0th level farmer could on him, because 1) the disparity between them is too great and 2) the high level character has so MANY HP he can one or two lucky shots just cannot make any significant difference. It is a system for people who want to wade through, not just combat, but INJURY without caring or even noticing. I know the rational(ization) is that their greater experience gives the ability to anticipate, avoid, cushion etc. attacks, but high level characters can "avoid" death from swimming through lava if they are out within 10 minutes.

Some people may enjoy that, but I just cannot suspend my disbelief that far, nor do I feel much desire to try. We are pretending, not indulging delusions of grandeur.


Perhaps that is the difference then; I admit I have not continued any characters that far, but have known many who did. My usual GM back in the day had an archmage he ran for 5 years straight before retiring him at 20th level and a gameworld status similar to Elminsters. I think that contributed to him running us through some incredibly low magic and high level campaigns; he was the guy who sent a 2nd-3rd level party to Ravenloft because he had a hardon for the place, even though the sum total of our magical gear consisted of a dagger+1 and a long sword+2 we had only just acquired. Anyway, my point is that if you stick with the character and are good/lucky enough to avoid getting killed, sooner or later you will end up with that demigod; since level drain is not permanent, that is all but guaranteed.

If you prefer world-building to game mechanics though GURPS has much to offer, because once you have the rules down they are so thorough and logical the game almost runs itself; it is just a matter of getting to the point you know the many rules that well. Then you are free to design literally any world(s) imaginable (as you may have gleaned from Macharius' comments, some would say it is obligatory) with rules ready to hand for anything characters might do there.

Shadowrun demanded a whole new system from FASA (or SOMEONE;) GURPS already had Fantasy Folk with a wealth of races whose stat bonuses and abilities were meticulously defined, and Cyberpunk with appropriate skills and scenarios. You might have to map your Neo Tokyo and design/define the campaign, but the basic rules are identical to the Western campaign you ran last month. Heck, you can make them COMPLETELY identical and run a Steampunk campaign with fantasy races. Grab GURPS Supers and make them all powerful mutants. Same core rules regardless; it is just kind of hard to publish modules to fit infinite contingencies. It does not sound like that bothers you much.


I do not want a game where it MUST happen, I just do not want one where it CANNOT happen. I want that level of realism to make it believable and not controlled by whims, rather than an exercise in mental masturbation (or perhaps a mental circle jerk, as the case may be. ) I do not want a world where the characters ignominious deaths are an imminent certainty (the low-level low-magic Ravenloft campaign was like that, and no one enjoyed it except the GM who never had to worry about characters breaking his campaign, because it broke them.) I just also do not want a world where the characters heroic immortal triumph is an imminent certainty either. The drama, and thus the fun, lies somewhere in the middle.

It becomes a quality issue when we cease dealing with an alternate or fictional reality and are left with a completely, constantly arbitrary one DIVORCED from reality. It is the difference between saying, "my character is just like me except for a different personality and the ability to fly; if you shoot him in the head he still dies" vs. "my character can instantly alter time and space at will." It is the difference between creative imagination and pure fiat.


I believe 2nd Ed. used both terms, just like fighters=warriors, mages=wizards and priests=clerics. And, yeah, Wizard Eye was nasty if you knew how to use it and had lots of vicious sight-range spells. You usually do not get surprise, but you still have a one-sided fight until THEIR casters are close enough to see you. I never used it in BG, but theoretically you ought to be able to send the eye in from a different direction than your party and the bad guys might not even figure out where you are before they are all dead; fireballs do not streak in, they originate from a central point.